Little-Acorn
12-13-2010, 07:03 PM
Well, some Bush-41 appointee decided that, since the Supremes said people could carry a gun inside their homes but didn't specifically say they could carry OUTSIDE it, that meant that govt could still forbid people to carry outside. Further, the govt has the right to decide who has a "good enough reason" to carry a gun and who doesn't. She did not explain how a person could appeal the decision of some government official that he didn't have a good reason to carry, in the two seconds a rapist might give him when he finds the rapist grabbing his daughter.
Plus the usual fibs\\\\assurance that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will make us safer.
Yep, it wasn't enough for the Supremes to gently remind people like this judge, that we have the right to keep and bear arms, and even that the right shall not be infringed. Sure enough, we're going to have to go in and explain it to every two-bit sheriff, judge, and mall cop, before they finally start obeying the plain language of the Constitution.
It ain't over till it's over. So be it.
Full text of the ruling can be found here:
http://media.signonsandiego.com/news/documents/2010/12/13/PerutaMSJruling.pdf
----------------------------------------
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/13/federal-judge-upholds-county-concealed-weapons-pro/
Federal judge upholds county concealed weapons program
By Greg Moran
Originally published December 13, 2010 at 12:09 p.m., updated December 13, 2010 at 1:45 p.m.
SAN DIEGO — San Diego County's system of issuing permits for carrying concealed weapons does not violate the constitutional rights of gun owners, a federal judge in San Diego has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Irma Gonzalez ruled in a decision issued Friday that the county concealed weapons permit process did not illegally infringe on gun owners' rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Her ruling granted the county's request to issue a judgment in its favor and essentially ends the lawsuit for now. It had been filed by a group of gun owners and a gun ownership advocacy group, contending that in the wake of two recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings the county's standards for granting permits were illegal.
Those rulings held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess guns for self-defense in the home. Under California law, a sheriff is empowered to determine whether someone has demonstrated "good cause" to have a concealed weapons permit, among other criteria for issuing the permit.
The lawsuit argued that the right to self-defense recognized by the high court is enough "good cause" to get the permit. The county argued that the recent court decision applied only to keeping weapons in the home and there was no right to carry a loaded concealed weapon in public.
In her 17-page ruling, Gonzalez concluded that the county had an "important and substantial interest in public safety and reducing the rate of gun use in crime." The county's permit process satisfies those goals, she wrote, and the good cause standard was also proper because it allows the county to determine who has a "bona fide need to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense, and individuals who do not."
Plus the usual fibs\\\\assurance that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will make us safer.
Yep, it wasn't enough for the Supremes to gently remind people like this judge, that we have the right to keep and bear arms, and even that the right shall not be infringed. Sure enough, we're going to have to go in and explain it to every two-bit sheriff, judge, and mall cop, before they finally start obeying the plain language of the Constitution.
It ain't over till it's over. So be it.
Full text of the ruling can be found here:
http://media.signonsandiego.com/news/documents/2010/12/13/PerutaMSJruling.pdf
----------------------------------------
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/13/federal-judge-upholds-county-concealed-weapons-pro/
Federal judge upholds county concealed weapons program
By Greg Moran
Originally published December 13, 2010 at 12:09 p.m., updated December 13, 2010 at 1:45 p.m.
SAN DIEGO — San Diego County's system of issuing permits for carrying concealed weapons does not violate the constitutional rights of gun owners, a federal judge in San Diego has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Irma Gonzalez ruled in a decision issued Friday that the county concealed weapons permit process did not illegally infringe on gun owners' rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Her ruling granted the county's request to issue a judgment in its favor and essentially ends the lawsuit for now. It had been filed by a group of gun owners and a gun ownership advocacy group, contending that in the wake of two recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings the county's standards for granting permits were illegal.
Those rulings held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess guns for self-defense in the home. Under California law, a sheriff is empowered to determine whether someone has demonstrated "good cause" to have a concealed weapons permit, among other criteria for issuing the permit.
The lawsuit argued that the right to self-defense recognized by the high court is enough "good cause" to get the permit. The county argued that the recent court decision applied only to keeping weapons in the home and there was no right to carry a loaded concealed weapon in public.
In her 17-page ruling, Gonzalez concluded that the county had an "important and substantial interest in public safety and reducing the rate of gun use in crime." The county's permit process satisfies those goals, she wrote, and the good cause standard was also proper because it allows the county to determine who has a "bona fide need to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense, and individuals who do not."