• 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.

Two More Concealed Carry Appeals Lose

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Three More Concealed Carry Appeals Lose

The first two decisions came 48 days after the paper copies of the supplemental briefs regarding the Peruta v. San Diego concealed carry decision were distributed.

The decisions are unpublished, which means they do no harm, and very short. They basically said "You lost! See Peruta v. San Diego."

The decisions are posted at the top of this page. Simply click on the case names.

EDIT:

Make that Three More Concealed Carry Appeals Lose. :banana::banana::banana:

EDIT January 10, 2017: The last known (to me) civil concealed carry case still being litigated in a California district court (or 9th circuit) has now lost. Christopher Anderson v. John Scott et al. :banana::banana::banana::banana:
 
Last edited:

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
The first two decisions came 48 days after the paper copies of the supplemental briefs regarding the Peruta v. San Diego concealed carry decision were distributed.

The decisions are unpublished, which means they do no harm, and very short. They basically said "You lost! See Peruta v. San Diego."

The decisions are posted at the top of this page. Simply click on the case names.

EDIT:
Make that Three More Concealed Carry Appeals Lose. :banana::banana::banana:

Why are you always so excited and happy about the continued losses of gun rights court cases... :banghead:
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Most of us here do not care how others carry - just that they do not restrict our right to choose.

Any loss diminishes our RKBA.
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Most of us here do not care how others carry - just that they do not restrict our right to choose.

Any loss diminishes our RKBA.

The reason why concealed carry keeps losing is because its supporters think concealed carry is a right under the Second Amendment.

My favorite argument from that quarter is that there is a right to concealed carry because the plain text of the Second Amendment doesn't say concealed carry isn't a right. They have had 3,060 days since the Heller decision was published within which to educate themselves.

They haven't and neither have the other proponents of concealed carry under their various (unsupported) theories.

There is no cure for stupid. Hence I rejoice with each concealed carry loss as each loss entails that there will be many, many stupid immoral people who will not be obtaining concealed carry permits.
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
The reason why concealed carry keeps losing is because its supporters think concealed carry is a right under the Second Amendment.

My favorite argument from that quarter is that there is a right to concealed carry because the plain text of the Second Amendment doesn't say concealed carry isn't a right. They have had 3,060 days since the Heller decision was published within which to educate themselves.

They haven't and neither have the other proponents of concealed carry under their various (unsupported) theories.

There is no cure for stupid. Hence I rejoice with each concealed carry loss as each loss entails that there will be many, many stupid immoral people who will not be obtaining concealed carry permits.

.... :eek: :uhoh:

are you serious? Heller was a win and a loss. and heller in it's saying that concealed isn't a right is just dumb.

the second is a very simple phrase, A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary to the Security of a free state, ( this part is the militia part that everyone uses to say "regulations are constitutional, YET it is essentially self contained clause that ties INTO the following phrase through the fact that THE PEOPLE ARE THE MILITIA) THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. ( also a singular clause capable of holding weight with itself)

how one keeps and or bears their arms/firearms is not up to YOUR discretion, or even the legislatures discretion.

and as other have stated an RKBA loss is a LOSS ON ALL FRONTS, this include OC, cause where do you think they will go after CC has essentially been wiped off the map? your state sucks, I wish it would secede, or a giant earthquake would separate it from the rest of the USA, preferably AFTER it's secession.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
.... :eek: :uhoh:

are you serious? Heller was a win and a loss. and heller in it's saying that concealed isn't a right is just dumb.

the second is a very simple phrase, A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary to the Security of a free state, ( this part is the militia part that everyone uses to say "regulations are constitutional, YET it is essentially self contained clause that ties INTO the following phrase through the fact that THE PEOPLE ARE THE MILITIA) THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. ( also a singular clause capable of holding weight with itself)

how one keeps and or bears their arms/firearms is not up to YOUR discretion, or even the legislatures discretion.

and as other have stated an RKBA loss is a LOSS ON ALL FRONTS, this include OC, cause where do you think they will go after CC has essentially been wiped off the map? your state sucks, I wish it would secede, or a giant earthquake would separate it from the rest of the USA, preferably AFTER it's secession.

According to your logic, human sacrifice, death threats and counterfeiting are all protected by the 1st Amendment because the 1st Amendment doesn't say they aren't protected.

The Second Amendment means what the Framers of the Second Amendment and those who voted to enact it thought it meant in 1791 and when a state law is at issue, it means what the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and those who voted to enact it thought it meant in 1868.

At neither time was concealed carry thought to be a right, let alone a right protected by the Second Amendment.

Your logic, if it becomes the prevailing view, is very likely to doom the Second Amendment in the long run.
 

cjohnson44546

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
188
Location
Memphis, TN
The reason why concealed carry keeps losing is because its supporters think concealed carry is a right under the Second Amendment.

My favorite argument from that quarter is that there is a right to concealed carry because the plain text of the Second Amendment doesn't say concealed carry isn't a right. They have had 3,060 days since the Heller decision was published within which to educate themselves.

They haven't and neither have the other proponents of concealed carry under their various (unsupported) theories.

There is no cure for stupid. Hence I rejoice with each concealed carry loss as each loss entails that there will be many, many stupid immoral people who will not be obtaining concealed carry permits.

You're one of those people who think "bear arms" means "visible carry of arms" .... your problem is not knowing English. It simply means carrying, and "bear arms" doesn't in any way indicate visibility. If concealed carry is not protected by the second amendment, then neither is open carry.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
You're one of those people who think "bear arms" means "visible carry of arms" .... your problem is not knowing English. It simply means carrying, and "bear arms" doesn't in any way indicate visibility. If concealed carry is not protected by the second amendment, then neither is open carry.

It is unfortunate that folks are allowed to post anonymously. It would make for an interesting project to map people who hold views like this to various demographics and individual metrics such as intelligence, employment, level of college education, degrees obtained and in what subjects, a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse or brain injury, etc.

Not that the poster's statement doesn't already speak volumes about him. It would just be nice to quantify these folks.

NO CCW FOR YOU.jpg
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
i believe i have seen a bit of insults thrown out here, but must state that your degrading commentary about and towards cjohnson is perhaps one of the worst to date.

it is always pleasant to see someone who has been challenged, immediately react to a 'do not pass go' but leap directly into the 8yo playground rant. quite lovely ~ for a child, no so for an adult of your stature.

i will state, your credibility has now sunk to an obviously new low on your cause celebres you are fruitlessly pushing on this venue.

ipse
 

bc.cruiser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
786
Location
Fayetteville NC
It is unfortunate that folks are allowed to post anonymously. It would make for an interesting project to map people who hold views like this to various demographics and individual metrics such as intelligence, employment, level of college education, degrees obtained and in what subjects, a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse or brain injury, etc.

Not that the poster's statement doesn't already speak volumes about him. It would just be nice to quantify these folks.

My computer was upset enough by your drivel that I had to reboot to be able to reply. Between you and Mr. Johnson, you are the anonymous one. You might also not want to be subject to the proposed project; the ego might not be able to deal with finding itself at the low end of the scale.

As posted above, the 2A makes no mention of mode of carry, only that the government must recognize our right to do so without infringement. I do not care how one carries; I do care that so many pay for that "privilege" when the requirement should not exist. Your arguments about whether the 2A includes or excludes CC are without merit: The RKBA, without further annotation, contains no restriction on mode. CC has become a privilege because various legislatures have made it so; we are working to correct that.


A.Whitlow (In spite of my accent, I ain't from around here)
 

Lawful Aim

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
131
Location
USA
It isn't a "loss", it is a clarification of specific points brought before a particular court. If you believe it as a loss, a loss for what? Rights that are prejudiced by a foreign STATE?

God help you.
 
Last edited:

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
According to your logic, human sacrifice, death threats and counterfeiting are all protected by the 1st Amendment because the 1st Amendment doesn't say they aren't protected.

The Second Amendment means what the Framers of the Second Amendment and those who voted to enact it thought it meant in 1791 and when a state law is at issue, it means what the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and those who voted to enact it thought it meant in 1868.

At neither time was concealed carry thought to be a right, let alone a right protected by the Second Amendment.

Your logic, if it becomes the prevailing view, is very likely to doom the Second Amendment in the long run.

wow...


OK first off, murder is not an act of expression, death threats are a 1st amendment protected right, so long as nothing comes of it. at which point it is not expression it is murder.

my view is not likely to doom anything.

your Californian education is showing through.

and your next post is also insulting in many ways, talking about prevailing views in regards to demographics and education. it becomes apparent YOUR education consists of multiple points of view of particular historical meanings that sway to the "liberal" side of logic, rather then the simplistic base of the meaning.

simplified KEEP= OWN, BEAR= carry

it does NOT distinguish a difference in carry methods as one or the other being protected and the other not under any circumstance.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snipped--death threats are a 1st amendment protected right, so long as nothing comes of it.
Not necessarily so.

1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Snip....
simplified KEEP= OWN, BEAR= carry

...snip.

Not to be argumentative but in the context of the Constitution and specifically the 2nd amendment, KEEP=Possess or control....

Limiting the word 'keep' to be only to 'own' eliminates on the right to 'possess or control' an arm loaned to one but not actually 'owned' by the possessor.

Please note: I am NOT saying that OWNERSHIP is NOT included in "KEEP"!
 
Last edited:

Va_Nemo

Member
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
654
Location
Lynchburg
The reason why concealed carry keeps losing is because its supporters think concealed carry is a right under the Second Amendment.

Carrying arms open or concealed is not a right given by the 2A. It is a right given by being human and needing/desiring methods to protect oneself from danger. It is given by that god or supreme being or whatever you hold or do not hold dear.

2A restates the rule and makes special notice of it for all to remember.

How I choose to make use of that fundamental freedom is not something you can limit or define or hold me to any specific method. If youi can limit whether I open or conceal carry under the 2A can you not also limit what church I attend or what parts of my house you must obtain a warrant to search under 4A or what questions about how involved I was under 5A I must answer.

How about I limit the type of criminal cases you get a jury on demand, without regard to anything but what I say.

If I cannot carry concealed, you cannot carry a semi-auto handgun. If I cannot carry concealed you cannot carry anything over 22 cal and that limited to shorts.

If you can limit how I carry, I can limit what you carry.

If my carrying concealed is too dangerous to society, your carrying anything over 22 short is too dangerous. Further you must wear a bright hunter orange shirt and hat so everyone can take notice of your carrying and not be around you if they choose.

Your method or reasoning and general logic is so far flawed it is far beyond the rim of the cavern of ludicrous. I am not sure but it seems you need to go back to school and learn to think.

Nemo
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Not necessarily so.

1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault

California Penal Code section 422 is probably the most commonly charged crime in this state due to a 19th century statute still on the books which limits the circumstances under which an "assault" can be committed. Also, it doesn't matter whether or not the threat was genuine or the person making the threat has the means to carry it out or the person making the threat made it outside of California. These factors make for an easy conviction.

But now that I have your attention Grapeshot, I have to ask why you even bother?

I am here because on a rare occasion someone who is an Open Carry proponent passes by. Everything else here is for entertainment purposes only.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
snippp...

But now that I have your attention Grapeshot, I have to ask why you even bother?

snippp...

Everything else here is for entertainment purposes only.

i find it quite interesting your website screams about legal carry atrocities which you phrase under the guise of the emotional flag waving 2A banner.

those verbal atrocities listed are surrounded by obnoxious statements blatantly seeking everyone to donate ~ bitcoins seem to be your preference.

on the top of your illustrious website you provide status of those cases you have filed...

so out of the myriad of 10-15 (?) legal briefs you have filed in MT, WA, much less CA, how many have you actually won?

why does it seem this effort you are engaged in is nothing more than a 'gofundme' style profit center for you?

so Charles, you are quite right, your statement above is quite prophetic of our impression of your forum posts, which is a shame because with a little credibility, your filings wouldn't be languishing hundreds of days gathering dust.

ipse

another prophetic comment to guide your efforts, quote: Or perhaps the head of the SAF, Alan Gottlieb, knows that he is going to lose but files these concealed carry lawsuits to entice the Kool-Aid drinkers to give him money. I don’t know. unquote. http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=4358
 
Top