Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Politics 2017 part V


  • Please log in to reply
241 replies to this topic

#241
Guard Dog

Guard Dog

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 546 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

So it looks like Peruta v California is likely to find itself on the Supreme Court docket next year.  This excerpt from the article describes the meat of the issue:

 

 

At issue in Peruta v. California is a state law that says conceal-carry permits will only be issued to those persons who have demonstrated to the satisfaction of their local county sheriff that they have a "good cause" for carrying a concealed firearm in public. What counts as a "good cause?" In the words of one San Diego official, "one's personal safety is not considered good cause." In effect, the local sheriff has vast discretion to pick and choose who gets a permit and who doesn't. Because the guidelines are unclear there is a severe risk of arbitrary enforcement. As one previous court ruling on the matter observed, "in California the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table."

 

This is a little different than the previous two gun control cases. In those the issue was complete prohibition of ownership in the home. In those cases the justices (the good ones at least) remembered what "shall not be infringed" means. This is about the issuance of concealed carry permits which has always been at the pleasure of the State. Even in DC v Heller Scalia reaffirmed the latitude on the part of the government for "reasonable restrictions" in the same paragraph he said prohibition is not reasonable.

 

I have to admit to being somewhat torn by this one. On one hand I am very much in favor of allowing citizens in good standing to carry firearms so long as it is done in compliance with the laws of their state. California's oppressive attitude on this issue does not make a lot of sense to me. But on the other hand I VERY much believe it is up to the citizens, voters, and legislators of California to determine how California conducts it's business. The Federal Government and the citizens of other states should mind their own business IMO. 

 

So what it comes down to is does the 2nd Amendment which reads "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." permit carrying arms in public? It has never been interpreted that way before to my knowledge. So for my part I'm going to say no. The Constitution is the supreme law of the US and what it does not specifically cover is reserved for the State (and lower) governments. And California has made it's position of this clear. If you don't like it the remedy should be sought in Sacramento, not on 1st Street in Washington DC. 

 

This is an interesting case because folks who are pro-gun rights are also usually pro-states rights and its rare to see those two priorities turned in opposition to each other.

 

One more onion to toss in this stew is the Trump administration is considering a bill to insist on unlimited reciprocity of concealed carry permits in all states. But I'm sure that will mean all states the issue them. I'm actually against this too for the same reasons. Mine is issued in my home state but is honored in every other state in the south except Kentucky. Kentucky has a slightly different standard for issuance. But some states have caliber restrictions and other nuances that differentiate them. Carrying a weapon is a responsibility. It should be incumbent upon the permit holder to research the laws for any state they plan on traveling to. When I was working in Louisville the pistol was under the seat and ammunition locked in the glove compartment. That was the law.

 

Here is the article. This one will be interesting to watch I think. http://reason.com/bl...s-next-big-seco



#242
Volourn

Volourn

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 16946 posts
  • Location:North Bay, Ontario, Kanada
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

"one's personal safety is not considered good cause."

 

L0L That's insane.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Ben No.3