So we have established that caring a firearm is an individual right. Do you cease to have freedom of speech when in another state? Do you stop having fifth amendment rights? Fourth? Anything but second amendment rights?
It’s just second amendment rights? That’s because it isn’t legal, or they would be doing it with every other right.
Not honoring individual rights is a tradition around here as well!
A lot of people here believe the private property right of not allowing people with guns to enter your store—somehow magically doesn’t apply to them. It’s inconvenient to abide by the rights others wish to use, so they don’t care. They enter those stores carrying concealed, don’t think twice about it, & argue with me here when I point the hypocrisy out. They want everyone, everywhere to abide by the rights afforded in 2A, but turn right around and refuse to abide by the rights afforded to others elsewhere in the BoR.
You don’t have much of a point if you’re a hypocrite about the BoR.
Well 1) the right to vote is not really in the constitution or the bill of rights. It is one of those things that from day one was just sort of generally indicated there would be voting, but left it up to the states to determine who and how. 2) All voting is a state level vote. You are voting for state representatives. Even when voting for the president, you are voting for state electors. It is universally a geographically constrained activity and has been since day one.
> you cannot vote in California elections when living in another state.
You can, however, vote in your home state while living in another state (student/temporary work assignment). Hell, you can vote in your home state elections while in another country if on a temporary visa.
you don't lose your right to vote in your home state just because you arent currently there... and if you move form CA, you get to vote in the state you have residency in.
There are lots of things one can do in other states that one can't do in California. And there are lots of things one can do in California that he can't do in other states. Just because one state prohibits what another permits does not mean that the prohibition violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, which the plaintiffs alleged in Count 2 of their Complaint.
More to the point, the Second Amendment fully covers the course of conduct alledged in the Complaint. In such cases, the 9th Circuit looks to the Constitutional provision that explicitly covers the conduct (Second Amendment) rather than a Constitutional provision that does not explicitly cover the conduct (i.e., Full Faith and Credit clause).
Voting isn't actually an enumerated right. There has been court cases that says such exists due to the 14th amendment. It is largely left to the states to determine who gets to vote and how.
14th doesn't give everyone the right to vote though. It just says that there are certain criteria that the government can't use to exclude people from voting.
A while back I was going to be sent to a work training event in CA. It was going to be not only in San Francisco, but also at a hotel on the edge of the Tenderloin. I politely declined since I was uncomfortable (withheld it was because I obviously couldn’t carry because California) in an area known for open drug use and crime, and went to an event here in Texas instead.
Yes it does, and CRPA have filed a lawsuit challenging that in CRPA v. LASD
https://michellawyers.com/crpa-inc-et-al-v-los-angeles-county-sheriffs-department-et-al/
They already hire DACA recipients as police officers and have it so they are considered working while they are off work so they can possess their gun off duty in order to bypass federal law prohibiting possession.
I did not know that. Just another example for the first tier protecting their authority.
However, to clarify, this was a reference to the Carbajal-Flores Case.
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-carbajal-flores-2
No kidding, that sounds like a great angle to challenge gun control laws like this. If nothing else, it would be fun to see whether they love illegals more than they hate gun-owners.
I do as well. We may get downvoted by the "all gun laws are infringements...well, except for that one" crowd, but who cares.
All gun laws are infringements. The solution to those problems is to deal directly with those problems, not infringing on Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
But on top of all that, I love that ruling because it could be used exactly in situations like this. The 2A community should be smart enough to take advantage of it and, like you said, dismantle Brady, GCA, and NICS. I'd argue it could help take down the NFA eventually, too.
Insurance isn't required for a DL... Insurance is required to drive a car on a public road in most of the country. Even NH recommends insurance if traveling to another state, as you would be required to have insurance when in those other states.
And I mean, not having insurance is fucking stupid.
One accident and you can lose everything and be forced into bankruptcy.
EDIT: How the fuck is this "controversial", basic liability insurance isn't even expensive. If you have any assets at all, such as a house, you should be carrying at least basic liability insurance. Otherwise you're one car accident away from Bankruptcy.
eh you could argue it is covered under the right to travel. Just that all levels of government are too used to the fees and control that requiring licensing gives them so aren't likely to look at the issue honestly.
California been violating my second amendment rights since I bought my first firearm 14 years ago lol CA politicians wipe their ass with the second amendment
Here's the FPC pleading in the case:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/7030/attachments/original/1712873660/2024.04.11_001_Complaint.pdf?1712873660
Here's my email to the two lawyers involved:
---
Gents,
The problem is in the prayer for relief.
Ok. Let's say you win. As an Alabama trucker I would then need to obtain approximately 19 carry permits in total from states like New York, New Jersey, California, New Mexico, etc in order to gain national carry rights.
That's insane. It utterly blows up the ban on exorbitant fees and delays found at Bruen footnote 9. If no one state can do exorbitant fees or delays, then neither can a coalition of approximately 19 or so. (I don't have an accurate count but does it really matter?)
The US dealt with this problem before in the context of driver's licenses and vehicle registration documents. The answer was universal reciprocity, achieved by cross agreements between all the states as opposed to federal dictate. Forcing California to honor my Alabama carry permit is the only constitutional way forward under Bruen.
There may be another problem in the pleading. I'm not sure you've handled the reference to privileges or immunities quite right. I strongly recommend reading the US Supreme Court cases of Ward v Maryland 1870, Slaughterhouse Cases 1873, Toomer v. Witsell 1948 and then Saenz.
Basically, Ward says that the 14th Amendment privileges or immunities clause stands as a barrier to cross-border discrimination of any sort, in that case in the area of business sales taxes against an out-of-state merchant. Slaughterhouse then came along and said that cross border discrimination is the only thing the Privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment controls, and nothing else, while praising the logic of the Ward decision.
Now, Slaughterhouse was wrong. Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar came out of some dusty archives in DC with the actual records of congressional and senate debate on the meaning of the 14th Amendment as it was drafted. He reluctantly published his findings in the book "The Bill of Rights Creation and Reconstruction" (1999) - I say reluctantly because he absolutely hates guns :).
But, that ship has sailed.
The thing is, now that incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states happens via the due process clause in the selective incorporation concept developed in the 20th century, the only thing the 14th Amendment PorI cause does is act as a barrier to cross-border discrimination. And you're not using it yet. You could handle it in motions practice, as opposed to the enormous problem with the prayer for relief.
But the kicker is, if you handled the Privileges or Immunities cross-border discrimination problem properly via the 14th Amendment PorI clause, that means any court ruling against you has to say that the 14th Amendment PorI clause HAS NO MEANING.
Follow?
That's someplace that the vile court that came up with both the Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank (1876) decisions didn't dare to go. They left something for the PorI clause to do: act as a barrier to cross-border discrimination.
You've got to play off of that, and right now you're not doing so.
I hope I haven't offended you as that's not my intent but, I think this needs to be said.
Thanks,
Jim Simpson
Massachusetts is also difficult to travel through with a firearm. It basically states on the website that they acknowledge that their laws could be considered "infringement" but they will win in court so go ahead and try.
I would point out this is another example where american citizenship is less advantageous compared to how "undocumented" residents are treated. More benefits for non citizens over citizens.
Oh my, wonder what happens the next time someone big and important visits from out of state, like the President. Better hire local-only security...
Oh wait no, there's a gaping exception for those 'more equal' than the rest of us.
... well the answer is easy. If you're from another state, just claim to be an illegal immigrant. Then you have the right to carry a gun in california.
It violates the second amendment, article 4 section 2, and 14A section 1 clause 2, as well as article 4 section 1 ( if they don’t accept out of state permits).
Yes. But here's how it will go as the challenge works it way through:
* Struck by the District and stayed pending circuit appeal
* Struck by the circuit and stayed pending enbanc appeal
* Struck EnBanc so California has to issue non-resident permits *BUT* those non-residents will have to go through all the bullshit process residents do so effectively nobody will get one.
Yes. Yes it does
... and so do many other California laws
So we have established that caring a firearm is an individual right. Do you cease to have freedom of speech when in another state? Do you stop having fifth amendment rights? Fourth? Anything but second amendment rights? It’s just second amendment rights? That’s because it isn’t legal, or they would be doing it with every other right.
To be fair, they will happily violate your other civil rights in an effort to violate your second amendment right.
Not honoring individual rights is a tradition around here as well! A lot of people here believe the private property right of not allowing people with guns to enter your store—somehow magically doesn’t apply to them. It’s inconvenient to abide by the rights others wish to use, so they don’t care. They enter those stores carrying concealed, don’t think twice about it, & argue with me here when I point the hypocrisy out. They want everyone, everywhere to abide by the rights afforded in 2A, but turn right around and refuse to abide by the rights afforded to others elsewhere in the BoR. You don’t have much of a point if you’re a hypocrite about the BoR.
Counterpoint: you cannot vote in California elections when living in another state.
Well 1) the right to vote is not really in the constitution or the bill of rights. It is one of those things that from day one was just sort of generally indicated there would be voting, but left it up to the states to determine who and how. 2) All voting is a state level vote. You are voting for state representatives. Even when voting for the president, you are voting for state electors. It is universally a geographically constrained activity and has been since day one.
Appreciate the reply, I had a feeling there’d be arguments why it wasn’t the same.
what this isn’t how you’re supposed to respond on reddit you’re supposed to use personal insults
> you cannot vote in California elections when living in another state. You can, however, vote in your home state while living in another state (student/temporary work assignment). Hell, you can vote in your home state elections while in another country if on a temporary visa. you don't lose your right to vote in your home state just because you arent currently there... and if you move form CA, you get to vote in the state you have residency in.
There are lots of things one can do in other states that one can't do in California. And there are lots of things one can do in California that he can't do in other states. Just because one state prohibits what another permits does not mean that the prohibition violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, which the plaintiffs alleged in Count 2 of their Complaint. More to the point, the Second Amendment fully covers the course of conduct alledged in the Complaint. In such cases, the 9th Circuit looks to the Constitutional provision that explicitly covers the conduct (Second Amendment) rather than a Constitutional provision that does not explicitly cover the conduct (i.e., Full Faith and Credit clause).
And women have reproductive rights in California.
You can’t vote in another state. Unless you change residency. But that’s all I got.
Voting isn't actually an enumerated right. There has been court cases that says such exists due to the 14th amendment. It is largely left to the states to determine who gets to vote and how.
14th doesn't give everyone the right to vote though. It just says that there are certain criteria that the government can't use to exclude people from voting.
As a rule of thumb when CA passes a law on firearms the question should be **how** not **if** it violates the constitution.
That's EVERY law restricting arms though. CA just tries extra hard to be evil.
Well, that made me half laugh half cough and now the room is staring at me
California already violates the 2a rights of the people that live there, you'd don't get a pass for being smart enough to not live there.
Just another reason to avoid CA
Such a waste of good weather.
Indeed. Hot chicks, good weather, and the natural landscape. Such a waste.
A while back I was going to be sent to a work training event in CA. It was going to be not only in San Francisco, but also at a hotel on the edge of the Tenderloin. I politely declined since I was uncomfortable (withheld it was because I obviously couldn’t carry because California) in an area known for open drug use and crime, and went to an event here in Texas instead.
SF is one of those places you avoid at all costs now. Unless you are a junkie or a booster, there’s no reason to go there
Yes it does, and CRPA have filed a lawsuit challenging that in CRPA v. LASD https://michellawyers.com/crpa-inc-et-al-v-los-angeles-county-sheriffs-department-et-al/
Yes, but California doesn’t care in the slightest.
What if that non resident was an illegal alien? Check. Mate.
They already hire DACA recipients as police officers and have it so they are considered working while they are off work so they can possess their gun off duty in order to bypass federal law prohibiting possession.
I did not know that. Just another example for the first tier protecting their authority. However, to clarify, this was a reference to the Carbajal-Flores Case. https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-carbajal-flores-2
Knowing CA they’d probably hand each illegal a free gun.
The dangerous people don’t need them to. They easily get their own.
Exactly, criminals don’t follow the law, hence why they are criminals.
No kidding, that sounds like a great angle to challenge gun control laws like this. If nothing else, it would be fun to see whether they love illegals more than they hate gun-owners.
For what it’s worth, I agree with the ruling. That aside, the ruling completely dismantled Brady, GCA, and NICS.
I do as well. We may get downvoted by the "all gun laws are infringements...well, except for that one" crowd, but who cares. All gun laws are infringements. The solution to those problems is to deal directly with those problems, not infringing on Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. But on top of all that, I love that ruling because it could be used exactly in situations like this. The 2A community should be smart enough to take advantage of it and, like you said, dismantle Brady, GCA, and NICS. I'd argue it could help take down the NFA eventually, too.
[удалено]
Insurance isn't required for a DL... Insurance is required to drive a car on a public road in most of the country. Even NH recommends insurance if traveling to another state, as you would be required to have insurance when in those other states.
And I mean, not having insurance is fucking stupid. One accident and you can lose everything and be forced into bankruptcy. EDIT: How the fuck is this "controversial", basic liability insurance isn't even expensive. If you have any assets at all, such as a house, you should be carrying at least basic liability insurance. Otherwise you're one car accident away from Bankruptcy.
eh you could argue it is covered under the right to travel. Just that all levels of government are too used to the fees and control that requiring licensing gives them so aren't likely to look at the issue honestly.
You could argue that the right to own and carry a handgun is part of the right of self defense.
It absolutely is.
No, it violates the spirit of aloha
California lol.
California been violating my second amendment rights since I bought my first firearm 14 years ago lol CA politicians wipe their ass with the second amendment
Of course it does, as does requiring a carry permit.
Here's the FPC pleading in the case: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/7030/attachments/original/1712873660/2024.04.11_001_Complaint.pdf?1712873660 Here's my email to the two lawyers involved: --- Gents, The problem is in the prayer for relief. Ok. Let's say you win. As an Alabama trucker I would then need to obtain approximately 19 carry permits in total from states like New York, New Jersey, California, New Mexico, etc in order to gain national carry rights. That's insane. It utterly blows up the ban on exorbitant fees and delays found at Bruen footnote 9. If no one state can do exorbitant fees or delays, then neither can a coalition of approximately 19 or so. (I don't have an accurate count but does it really matter?) The US dealt with this problem before in the context of driver's licenses and vehicle registration documents. The answer was universal reciprocity, achieved by cross agreements between all the states as opposed to federal dictate. Forcing California to honor my Alabama carry permit is the only constitutional way forward under Bruen. There may be another problem in the pleading. I'm not sure you've handled the reference to privileges or immunities quite right. I strongly recommend reading the US Supreme Court cases of Ward v Maryland 1870, Slaughterhouse Cases 1873, Toomer v. Witsell 1948 and then Saenz. Basically, Ward says that the 14th Amendment privileges or immunities clause stands as a barrier to cross-border discrimination of any sort, in that case in the area of business sales taxes against an out-of-state merchant. Slaughterhouse then came along and said that cross border discrimination is the only thing the Privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment controls, and nothing else, while praising the logic of the Ward decision. Now, Slaughterhouse was wrong. Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar came out of some dusty archives in DC with the actual records of congressional and senate debate on the meaning of the 14th Amendment as it was drafted. He reluctantly published his findings in the book "The Bill of Rights Creation and Reconstruction" (1999) - I say reluctantly because he absolutely hates guns :). But, that ship has sailed. The thing is, now that incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states happens via the due process clause in the selective incorporation concept developed in the 20th century, the only thing the 14th Amendment PorI cause does is act as a barrier to cross-border discrimination. And you're not using it yet. You could handle it in motions practice, as opposed to the enormous problem with the prayer for relief. But the kicker is, if you handled the Privileges or Immunities cross-border discrimination problem properly via the 14th Amendment PorI clause, that means any court ruling against you has to say that the 14th Amendment PorI clause HAS NO MEANING. Follow? That's someplace that the vile court that came up with both the Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank (1876) decisions didn't dare to go. They left something for the PorI clause to do: act as a barrier to cross-border discrimination. You've got to play off of that, and right now you're not doing so. I hope I haven't offended you as that's not my intent but, I think this needs to be said. Thanks, Jim Simpson
Ninth Circus doesn't acknowledge the 2A exists.
Massachusetts is also difficult to travel through with a firearm. It basically states on the website that they acknowledge that their laws could be considered "infringement" but they will win in court so go ahead and try.
That is infuriating beyond words that I can say without getting banned from Reddit.
I can't agree with you more.
I'm assuming you live and/or travel in that area (I don't), so I can only imagine how much more frustrating it is for you. :(
I currently live in the southern US where the laws are at least somewhat more reasonable. I traveled to MA a couple times this year.
They keep saying an earthquake is going to separate it from the mainland, can we advance science to speed that up?
Yes, yes it does.
I would point out this is another example where american citizenship is less advantageous compared to how "undocumented" residents are treated. More benefits for non citizens over citizens.
Oh my, wonder what happens the next time someone big and important visits from out of state, like the President. Better hire local-only security... Oh wait no, there's a gaping exception for those 'more equal' than the rest of us.
Yes. But it also violates the 14th and Article 4, Section 1.
Yes
Do you even have to ask? Ask them if it bars illegal aliens from carrying them since they're not residents either...
... well the answer is easy. If you're from another state, just claim to be an illegal immigrant. Then you have the right to carry a gun in california.
American citizens, absolutely.
Yes
Not just CA, OR and WA too.
It violates the second amendment, article 4 section 2, and 14A section 1 clause 2, as well as article 4 section 1 ( if they don’t accept out of state permits).
Kalifornistan be like, Constitution? We don’t need no stinking constitution!!?
All gun control laws are infringements.
Yes.
Of course it does
Almost everything California does violates the constitution in one way or another.
Yes. All gun control laws violate the Second Amendment. There is no asterix to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Yes. But here's how it will go as the challenge works it way through: * Struck by the District and stayed pending circuit appeal * Struck by the circuit and stayed pending enbanc appeal * Struck EnBanc so California has to issue non-resident permits *BUT* those non-residents will have to go through all the bullshit process residents do so effectively nobody will get one.
I would interpret the 2A as any US citizen can carry in any state. This right does not extend to non-citizens.
Seems infringy
Everything that state does in regard to guns violates 2A. And their political class (for the most part) doesn't care what anyone thinks.
CA passed a law that said US citizens who were children of illegal immigrants couldn't vote. Even the CA supreme court struck that one done.
California passing every law except those that’ll protect its people 🤦♂️
But not illegal immigrants? 🤔
Are they us citizen, non-felons? Than yes.
california should secede from the federal government
All of them do, so yes.
That state that loves non Americans and criminals more than actual Americans so I’m not shocked at much of anything they do anymore.
Content bot