• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Federal Court reaffirms right to Open Carry of firearms in California.

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
i can haz gun in public?
Uhm.. no. Not in the sense that anyone can carry a loaded firearm in defiance of 12031 and 626.9 and expect no repercussions. If Mr Nichols is so certain of his assertion that the court has ruled in any binding manner, he should volunteer to be the test case.

Wildhawker has it right-this interpretation is dangerous- not only in advocating the practice of LOC with laws on the books prohibiting it, but from the perspective of legal precedent. Even if it were binding, who wants the right to keep and bear a non-functional (unloaded) firearm?
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,247
Location
, South Carolina, USA
Finding something good in something bad is upsetting and strange. The fellow writing the article was able to find a nugget of good in the ruling whether or not the overall ruling was anything good at all. It made me think of this article I read earlier today that fits right in with this forum although most will disagree with it. :monkey
Want to be popular on the Internet? Be a jerk!
Study finds Internet users are overwhelmingly attracted to the negative




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40610086/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
Which is all well and good, except that the implication of the article is an [intentional] fabrication based upon non-informed reasoning.

It's a spin piece, pure and simple.

If it didn't have the potential to land people in jail, it would simply be another op ed among thousands.

Finding something good in something bad is upsetting and strange. The fellow writing the article was able to find a nugget of good in the ruling whether or not the overall ruling was anything good at all. It made me think of this article I read earlier today that fits right in with this forum although most will disagree with it. :monkey
Want to be popular on the Internet? Be a jerk!
Study finds Internet users are overwhelmingly attracted to the negative




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40610086/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
 
Last edited:

CenTex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
276
Location
,,
Finding something good in something bad is upsetting and strange. The fellow writing the article was able to find a nugget of good in the ruling whether or not the overall ruling was anything good at all. It made me think of this article I read earlier today that fits right in with this forum although most will disagree with it. :monkey
Want to be popular on the Internet? Be a jerk!
Study finds Internet users are overwhelmingly attracted to the negative




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40610086/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
This must also be true of news agencies. They breathe in positive and exhale negative. What news agency, including Fox, primarily reports on positive news? They all live in the negative world.
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
Would you tune into watch a Breaking News segment that says "plane lands without incident at LAX" or "tune in at 7pm for video of Lindsey Lohan driving sober and safely down Wilshire Blvd " ?
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
Uhm.. no. Not in the sense that anyone can carry a loaded firearm in defiance of 12031 and 626.9 and expect no repercussions. If Mr Nichols is so certain of his assertion that the court has ruled in any binding manner, he should volunteer to be the test case.

Wildhawker has it right-this interpretation is dangerous- not only in advocating the practice of LOC with laws on the books prohibiting it, but from the perspective of legal precedent. Even if it were binding, who wants the right to keep and bear a non-functional (unloaded) firearm?
Your right C-3, the only way to attack 12031 is on the 4th-A, just like Mc Donald case.
When a "law"12031(e) is being done on you, you can get the "Officer & Officers name and badge's" and file in
Federal Court under Title 18 USC section 241 & 242.
The misunderstanding here I been trying to explain, is you are not filing against the PD, at that time
but rather the Individual Person who violated your rights.

Now this is true I'm not blaming the leo's, their "just doing their job" and rightly so !
However my point is, by filing a "Personal lawsuit", the poor leo will say screaming "I'm just doing my job" !
What happens then is that PC 12031(e) comes under the flag in the Federal court, as being Unconstitutional.
As it violates your 4th-A. At that point it becomes unenforceable. Mc Donald wins again ! :)

All you need is the money to file in Federal Court, on 4th-A violations against that man personally.
Its a Win-Win situation think about it !
If the "Officer claims, I'm just doing my job", even though he "Does" have an option to not e-check, but did violate your 4th, then that's clearly a Title USC sec 241 & 242 violation.
If a "Law" is unconstitutional then that's exactly what it is ! An unloaded gun is not self-defense !

Also its fraud to take the public's money under false pretenses, and that is a felony & crime, regardless
of a law that said they can.
Norton vs.Shelby County
118 US 425 p. 442

Also Miranda vs.Arizona, 384 US 436 p.491

Also Marbury vs.Madison vs.5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176, (1803).

These are long established decisions.

So lets hear from you guys? what do you think of that ? Robin47 Yeah we Win ! :) Wheres that banana?
 

CenTex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
276
Location
,,
Would you tune into watch a Breaking News segment that says "plane lands without incident at LAX" or "tune in at 7pm for video of Lindsey Lohan driving sober and safely down Wilshire Blvd " ?
I remember when I was a kid in Ft. Worth, the last six or seven minutes of the news was always on something that was about something good going on around town or about a person doing something good. That was always the part of the news that grabbed my attention.
 

CenTex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
276
Location
,,
Your right C-3, the only way to attack 12031 is on the 4th-A, just like Mc Donald case.
When a "law"12031(e) is being done on you, you can get the "Officer & Officers name and badge's" and file in Federal Court under Title 18 USC section 241 & 242.
The misunderstanding here I been trying to explain, is you are not filing against the PD, at that time but rather the Individual Person who violated your rights.

Now this is true I'm not blaming the leo's, their "just doing their job" and rightly so !
However my point is, by filing a "Personal lawsuit", the poor leo will say screaming "I'm just doing my job" ! What happens then is that PC 12031(e) comes under the flag in the Federal court, as being Unconstitutional.
As it violates your 4th-A. At that point it becomes unenforceable. Mc Donald wins again ! :)

All you need is the money to file in Federal Court, on 4th-A violations against that man personally.
Its a Win-Win situation think about it !
If the "Officer claims, I'm just doing my job", even though he "Does" have an option to not e-check, but did violate your 4th, then that's clearly a Title USC sec 241 & 242 violation.
If a "Law" is unconstitutional then that's exactly what it is ! An unloaded gun is not self-defense !

Also its fraud to take the public's money under false pretenses, and that is a felony & crime, regardless of a law that said they can.
Norton vs.Shelby County
118 US 425 p. 442

Also Miranda vs.Arizona, 384 US 436 p.491

Also Marbury vs.Madison vs.5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176, (1803).

These are long established decisions.

So lets hear from you guys? what do you think of that ? Robin47 Yeah we Win ! :) Wheres that banana?
Now this is true I'm not blaming the leo's, their "just doing their job" and rightly so !
Isn't our complaint that their job is also to uphold the Constitution...not break it? They may be doing what they are told, but they are destroying our rights, so they are not doing the job "the people" are paying them to do.
 
Last edited:

CenTex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
276
Location
,,
Would you tune into watch a Breaking News segment that says "plane lands without incident at LAX" or "tune in at 7pm for video of Lindsey Lohan driving sober and safely down Wilshire Blvd " ?
Yes, I would. I used to go to the S.F. airport when I was I was in college to watch the planes come and go. I was raised around planes and I have always loved them.

Lohan driving sober? That would be a headliner!
 
Top