From the Seattle Times.....

By a vote of 7-4, the court upheld a California law that says applicants must cite a “good cause” to obtain a concealed-carry permit. Typically, people who are being stalked or threatened, celebrities who fear for their safety, and those who routinely carry large amounts of cash or other valuables are granted permits.

So 1%'rs cool, conceal carry no problem. Peasants, SOL.

Not even bothering to hide the corruption anymore .

Where is this stated in the bill of rights? It's a joke that we even have to pay for this right our founders wrote. GDMF'S.

Since there's nothing in the 2nd A specific to concealment, the 9th has a point. So it appears that CA is saying it wants its citizens who bear arms to open carry, everywhere, all the time because bearing arms is specifically called out in the 2nd.

My biggest problem is defining "good cause" as rich and famous!

I agree, but the only place I don't feel safe anymore, is in the busy city after dark, which I walk thru every night on my way home... I don't carry, but there are times when I wish I did (concealed of course)

Hanky - you used too many words. Per Queen Hillary, all amendments are open to regulation and restriction. So we are going to need you to use less words next time or apply for a special permit to use more words. Since I am already rich and famous and many of you stalk me, I've been granted special status by the state to use more words to defend myself.

Correct. Thank God. Toff is always joking about us worrying about gun grabbers coming, but in reality the anti's (think) they're slick by taking a little away from here and a little away here. A lot like a death by a thousand cuts. Pro gun People have every right to challenge and keep a close eye on these scoundrels. I'm not real concerned that these changes will happen in my life time. I wish the generation era of Judge Boldt would have put up more of a fight, our fisheries might not be in the shape their in now. .02

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



Infringe;
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise
"the surveillance infringed on his rights"

Well, Boldt went to the Supremes twice. They (the Supremes) also noted that WA's compliance/resistance was similar to the South's response to desegregation. I'd say they "fought it". What more should they have done?

2016, a liberal dilemma. The next president is likely to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices.

Vote for Hillary to maintain abortion rights, gay rights, let Mexicans stay and work in the U.S., allow immigration, including Muslim refugees, and incrementally erode the 2nd A.

Vote for Trump to ban abortion, gay rights, deport Mexicans (causing crops to rot in the fields), ban immigration of brown people and any Muslim, but keep the 2nd A as is.

That about sum it up?

There is more to the process than the Pres just appointing a Supreme Court Justice.

Thanks for the info Carcassman.

I know this is off topic, but,------------- we should have either reached an agreement before trial that was better than what we now have or being that we did go to trial we should have WON!

I don't believe that it does as things are not nearly that simple, however the summation of your 'dilemma' does clearly show your liberal bias.

Hankster,

Yes, it could be that simple this year.

Blackmouth,

Yes, a liberal bias. Given the choice between Clinton and Trump, how is it more complicated for either liberal or conservative biases?

When I stated that things are not nearly that simple, I was referring to the fact that the POTUS is an executive position as defined by our Constitution and neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump actually have the power to grant or deny your laundry list of favors and or fears.

As far as I am concerned the electorate is faced with making a choice between two deeply flawed candidates and no matter who is elected, I deeply desire that congress will show some fortitude and reign back in some of the power that it has ceded to the POTUS and reverse the dangerous trend of forfeiting its responsibiliies to the President.

As far as who has the simpler choice, liberals or conservatives, it seems to me that the liberals have a far simpler choice. Mrs. Clinton is a bonafide liberal and I certainly don't see Mr. Trump as a conservative.