• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9th Circus Court allows California "public place carry" ban following a previous injunction of law

Roadvirus

Roadvirus

Heading North
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
54,226
Reaction score
47,267
Location
Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Dec 30 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Saturday cleared the way for a California law that bans the carrying of guns in most public places to take effect at the start of 2024, as the panel put on hold a judge's ruling declaring the measure unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suspended a Dec. 20 injunction issued by a judge who concluded the Democratic-led state's law violated the right of citizens to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

This is bullshit. Oh well. SCOTUS will strike it down.
 
Roadvirus said:
This is bullshit. Oh well. SCOTUS will strike it down.
Click to expand...
Be a man and put the gun away,----good grief. Why don't we just require cowboy hats with it , and require everyone to watch one John Wayne movie every week..................give us a break....
 
Grand Mal said:
"There is absolutely no reason why out on the street today a civilian should be carrying a loaded weapon."
-Ronald Reagan-
Click to expand...
Well, this was mostly spared by conservatives freaking the **** out once Black people starting buying guns and following the police around to “police the police” in Black communities.

Maybe trans and gay people should just open carry everywhere to achieve a similar result. Radical guns rights gun control action.
 
Prediction: Righties will be wailing like it's the end of the world.

Oh shit, never mind, I just read some of the comments from Righties that proceeded my comment and they already have.

download.webp
 
Grand Mal said:
"There is absolutely no reason why out on the street today a civilian should be carrying a loaded weapon."
-Ronald Reagan-
Click to expand...

1. Nobody has to automatically agree with everything Reagan said, no matter his or their political affiliation.

2. Today is a different day than the day Reagan referred to.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Well, this was mostly spared by conservatives freaking the **** out once Black people starting buying guns and following the police around to “police the police” in Black communities.

Maybe trans and gay people should just open carry everywhere to achieve a similar result. Radical guns rights gun control action.
Click to expand...

In my state, nobody is allowed to open carry. I don't believe they have a place on the application for concealed carry where one has to reveal their sexual orientation. I would be very opposed to that, if they did have such a thing. Not because I think it would be a gateway to radical gun control. The trend in my state is towards that already. But because I think it would be completely irrelevant to whether someone should be granted permission to carry a concealed firearm.
 
I still can't believe the 10 shot magazine limit got shot down here in Commiefornia.

Oh well, Newsom just gave health insurance to 6 million illegal aliens. With the state 33 billion in the hole. From taxpayers leaving in droves and the influx of bums and freeloaders.
Poor Newsom, he hopes Joe will print a bunch more cash to bail him out. Like last time.

I don't think so, but those printing presses haven't even cooled off yet.

And I sure as hell am not giving the deluded bastards another effing dime.
 
Roadvirus said:
This is bullshit. Oh well. SCOTUS will strike it down.
Click to expand...
Noodlegawd said:
Of course they did. It seems that the 9th Circuit will never encounter an unconstitutional gun law that they won't support.
Click to expand...
VySky said:
Ah. The good ole 9th circuit.
Click to expand...

Can any constitutional expert help out here? Does "the plain language, i.e., meaning, of the text," end debate as to authors' intent, or not?

en.wikipedia.org

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

en.wikipedia.org

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
...
In Poe v. Ullman (1961), dissenting Justice John Marshall Harlan II adopted a broad view of the "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints ... and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.
Click to expand...
....
ruled that privacy was protected by the Constitution in Griswold v. CT (1965), which overturned a Connecticut law criminalizing birth control.[ While Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right to privacy was found in the "penumbras" of various provisions in the Bill of Rights, Justices Arthur Goldberg and John Marshll Harlan II wrote in concurring opinions that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause included individual privacy. The above-mentioned broad view of liberty embraced by dissenting Justice John Marshall Harlan II in Poe v. Ullman (1961) was adopted by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut.

The right to privacy was the basis for Roe v. Wade (1973), in which the Court invalidated a Texas law forbidding abortion except to save the mother's life. Like Goldberg's and Harlan's concurring opinions in Griswold, the majority opinion authored by Justice Harry Blackmun located the right to privacy in the Due Process Clause's protection of liberty. The decision disallowed many state and federal abortion restrictions, and it became one of the most controversial in the Court's history. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court decided that "the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed." The Court overruled both Roe and Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022). Dobbs signals a new era of weakening of the Allgeyer Court's understanding of liberty.

In Lawrence v. Texan (2003), the Court found that a Texas law against same-sex sexual intercourse violated the right to privacy. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court ruled that the fundamental right to marriage included same-sex couples being able to marry.
...

Section 3: Disqualification from office for insurrection or rebellion​

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, . shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Click to expand...

en.wikipedia.org

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
The amendment prohibits anyone who has been elected president twice from being elected again.

 
Integrityrespec said:
The 9th court is all about legislating from the bench. I believe they have more of their decisions overturned than any other circuit. Totally incompetent when it comes to Constitutional law.
Click to expand...

From 1999 to 2008, of the Ninth Circuit Court rulings that were reviewed by the Supreme Court, 20% were affirmed, 19% were vacated, and 61% were reversed; the median reversal rate for all federal appellate courts was 68.29% for the same period.[8] From 2010 to 2015, of the cases it accepted to review, the Supreme Court reversed around 79% of the cases from the Ninth Circuit, ranking its reversal rate third among the circuits; the median reversal rate for all federal circuits for the same time period was around 70 percent.[9]

en.wikipedia.org

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Roadvirus said:
This is bullshit. Oh well. SCOTUS will strike it down.
Click to expand...

Just another example of Judicial activism instead of following the law and precedent. It also points to problems created by appointing activist Judges/Justices rather than Jurists who follow law, precedent, and the Constitution.

Sorry to sound partisan but it is clear (after following years of Senate hearings on Judicial candidates) Democrats seek to appoint Judges/Justices on the basis of partisan lean, while Republicans appoint Judges/Justices on their history of following the law, precedent, and Constitutional interpretation history.
 
Roadvirus said:
From 1999 to 2008, of the Ninth Circuit Court rulings that were reviewed by the Supreme Court, 20% were affirmed, 19% were vacated, and 61% were reversed; the median reversal rate for all federal appellate courts was 68.29% for the same period.[8] From 2010 to 2015, of the cases it accepted to review, the Supreme Court reversed around 79% of the cases from the Ninth Circuit, ranking its reversal rate third among the circuits; the median reversal rate for all federal circuits for the same time period was around 70 percent.[9]

en.wikipedia.org

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Aside from emphasizing that residents of Wyoming, one of the whitest states, the state of the least foreign born, enjoy 68 X per capita representation in the U.S. Senate (578,000/39,500,000 = 68.3) compared to California with its dramatically more diverse, much better educated population,
...I cannot anticipate what relevant point you assume you are making.

We have the disparity in rulings between the two highest courts as a result of the electoral college and the freakish imblnc of U.S. Senate representation, along with the influence of the wealthiest RWE engaged in "court capture," not because of the competence of who overrules who!
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Well, this was mostly spared by conservatives freaking the **** out once Black people starting buying guns and following the police around to “police the police” in Black communities.

Maybe trans and gay people should just open carry everywhere to achieve a similar result. Radical guns rights gun control action.
Click to expand...
That might be what we need.

Some Trans folks open carrying while reading books on the streets to kids.

That would get the gun laws flowing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom