Fed. Judge Rules Against Concealed Carry in Calif.

SS109 wrote: Then again, laws against concealed carry didn't prevent Giffords or the students at VA Tech from getting shot.

AZ no longer has a law against concealed carry.

July, 2010
Arizona joins Alaska and Vermont as the only states to allow concealed weapons without a permit.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... z1MkQF7zEh

Denying CCW is chipping on the fringe of the right to bear guns. Shouldn't this right not be infringed?

It's not an absolute right, and never was.

You are very ignorant.

Coming from you that's a compliment.

The courts have already ruled that it's not an absolute right, and SomethingTheDogSaid gave you plenty of examples. I'm not interested in your insults based on your non-acceptance of facts and truth.

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Supremes have already ruled that the government can limit the 2nd Amendment such as with concealed weapons.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

From Heller, which came before McDonald established that the 2nd Amendment applied equally to the states as it did to the federal government. We won't even go down the road that the 19th Century courts would never have dreamed of imposing a federal limitation upon the states as these cases were also decided well before the heavily flawed practice of selective incorporation began and might easily be viewed in a different light if challenged today given that the right itself is viewed in a different light than at that point in history in the wake of McDonald. An 18th century court, unlike the modern ones, would have understood intuitively that an amendment limiting the scope and reach of the federal government into the domestic affairs of a state was not applicable when a citizen of a state was challenging a state law.

You all missed an enlightening meeting last evening of the 285 Corridor Tea Party Group. We had Jeffco Sheriff Ted Mink talking about CCW. Of course I wouldn't expect that LJ or Archer or any of the other Libs here would attend.

Nmysys wrote: You all missed an enlightening meeting last evening of the 285 Corridor Tea Party Group. We had Jeffco Sheriff Ted Mink talking about CCW. Of course I wouldn't expect that LJ or Archer or any of the other Libs here would attend.

nope, I have to watch my blood pressure.

If we had a bleeding heart liberal meeting would you come?

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Supremes have already ruled that the government can limit the 2nd Amendment such as with concealed weapons.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

From Heller, which came before McDonald established that the 2nd Amendment applied equally to the states as it did to the federal government. We won't even go down the road that the 19th Century courts would never have dreamed of imposing a federal limitation upon the states as these cases were also decided well before the heavily flawed practice of selective incorporation began and might easily be viewed in a different light if challenged today given that the right itself is viewed in a different light than at that point in history in the wake of McDonald. An 18th century court, unlike the modern ones, would have understood intuitively that an amendment limiting the scope and reach of the federal government into the domestic affairs of a state was not applicable when a citizen of a state was challenging a state law.

Of course some of us prefer to live the 21st Century rather than opining about life in the 19th Century.

Well, I'm a liberal and I cherish my right to carry a concealed weapon.