# NEW 2nd Amendment VICTORY !



## Hawaii Volcano Squad (Sep 25, 2013)

NEW 2nd Amendment VICTORY ! ::clapping::

Today, March 5, 2014; 9th Federal Circuit court has ordered another California county to issue CCW permits without requiring "good cause" justification.
About 24 hours left for the 9th circuit to vote for En Banc review. Even the dissenting judge Thomas from the Peruta case states that failing an En Banc panel review or SCOTUS appeal, denying both open carry & CCW is unconstitutional.






Case: Richards v. Prieto


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

Very good news indeed! Is is possible that common sense is coming back to America?


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

I am still not moving back to CA. It's bad enough I work there.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Ok dance in the street tonight . Then back to work. We only have a 2nd amendment that goes in our favor by 1 vote. Change one vote and no more 2nd for us.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

No, if it wasn't for the gun stores, the NRA and the SAF the matter would have never gone to court.


----------



## kevincali (Nov 15, 2012)

What county?


----------



## Hawaii Volcano Squad (Sep 25, 2013)

kevincali said:


> What county?


Peruta was San Diego

Richards is Yolo County.

There is no point for any county AG to contest this precedent without a direct appeal to SCOTUS.


----------



## Hawaii Volcano Squad (Sep 25, 2013)

PaulS said:


> No, if it wasn't for the gun stores, the NRA and the SAF the matter would have never gone to court.


Also Calguns


----------



## Infidel (Dec 22, 2012)

Moonshinedave said:


> Very good news indeed! Is is possible that common sense is coming back to America?


I wouldn't hold my breath for that.

-Infidel


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

No, not common sense but the shepherds are minding the flocks of sheeple.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

The problem I have with the whole deal is simple:

If you have to ask permission to do something (like get a permit or license), it is no longer a Right. You ask for permission and all you're doing is acknowledging that what you want is not a Right, but a mere privilege that the government can revoke at any time. The decision is NOT a victory. Here's a court decision that was a victory:

"_The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power_." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859).

Of course today the courts legislate from the bench and attempt to reverse the true meaning of the Second Amendment. So, this newest decision is no victory at all... except for tyrants taking your Rights.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Not just ask permission, but pay to ask permission. 
It would be like saying, Freedom of religion- just prove you are christian, show you tithe, pay a religion registration fee, and here's your 2 years subscription.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

At least I feel comfort knowing that guns aren't dead in Cali...yet.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Deebo said:


> Not just ask permission, but pay to ask permission.
> It would be like saying, Freedom of religion- just prove you are christian, show you tithe, pay a religion registration fee, and here's your 2 years subscription.


It won't be long before they try to ban that too.


----------



## Hawaii Volcano Squad (Sep 25, 2013)

*Update*

Hey people. I am posting the actual courtroom audio arguments from the Peruta case at the 9th Federal circuit court. I jumped out of my chair when one lawyer said "*A handgun and two clips is a weapon of mass destruction*" [around 19 minutes in]

This will get dragged on as the court wants [ordered actually] rebuttal from the Peruta legal team to the Calif AG's filing for either En Banc panel or leave to intervene and appeal the case to Scotus. The judges were snickering at the AG for declining to participate during the trial. They asked for the rebuttal filing by March 26th.

IF this does go to SCOTUS there are really two likely outcomes.

1- The case is upheld entirely, spreading the ruling across the entire nation, but the ruling would be stayed for up to a year until SCOTUS rules. meanwhile, no CCW permits.

2- The court compares Peruta to other sister Fed. Court outcomes in similar cases from other districts; splits the baby so to speak, and waters the ruling down, thereby guaranteeing no further pro 2nd amendment litigation in the foreseeable future.

So it's a roll of the dice. Do you feel lucky? Double down or take your winnings off the table?


----------



## Hawaii Volcano Squad (Sep 25, 2013)

*Hawaii 2nd Amendment VICTORY !*

*Hawaii 2nd Amendment VICTORY !* ::clapping::
Baker v. Kealoha

Peruta, Richards, and now Baker! The 2nd amendment is on the march in March!

Here is the latest 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling just published today, March 20, 2014, and the courtroom oral argument.

The deprivation of the people's rights by the State of Hawaii shall end and the rights of the people as enshrined in the Bill of Rights has been resoundingly affirmed by the court! (Well okay it was a 2-1 split but we will take the win!)


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

Hawaii Volcano Squad said:


> NEW 2nd Amendment VICTORY ! ::clapping::
> 
> Today, March 5, 2014; 9th Federal Circuit court has ordered another California county to issue CCW permits without requiring "good cause" justification.
> About 24 hours left for the 9th circuit to vote for En Banc review. Even the dissenting judge Thomas from the Peruta case states that failing an En Banc panel review or SCOTUS appeal, denying both open carry & CCW is unconstitutional.
> ...


I just thought I heard you say that your 2nd amendment rights are based on a court case. So I give this thread a fail

Our 2nd amendment rights are based upon Unalienable Rights which are not GRANTED by the guvment but are assumed with the individual person

The Government has no right to restrict the amendments to the Constitution, as the right there are effectively anti-rights against the ruling class


----------



## Hawaii Volcano Squad (Sep 25, 2013)

Hey Montana Rancher, stop smoking the farm fertilizer with your vaporizer.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Montana Rancher is absolutely correct!

The rights existed before the foundation of the nation, before the adoption of the constitution and no governing body. including the voters themselves, has any power to restrict the rights that are "natural", God given, or a matter of being born. The rights were listed in the first ten amendments to show that the government was expected to protect them - there was never any power given to the governments of the states or the federal government to restrict our rights in any way for any reason. (barring the ability to exercise your rights while incarcerated for the commission of a crime.


----------



## Hawaii Volcano Squad (Sep 25, 2013)

You guys are both smart enough to know that legislatures sometimes pass unconstitutional laws, county sheriffs institute unconstitutional procedures depriving people of their second amendment rights. These unconstitutional laws & procedures must be fought and opposed in a court of law and both of you know that. These cases are clear wins for people who support the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, and the Constitution.

Therefore if you want to argue about what God gave you for the sake of argument go right on ahead without me.

Fact is I was referring to the Peruta case being cited as precedent in other cases.

Therefore I find your comments that god gave man these rights as argumentative, beside the point, and totally irrelevant.

Federal Court precedents that protect our rights are important.
That is why people support the NRA, Calguns Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
That is why these groups hire lawyers to protect the people from unconstitutional laws, procedures, & policies in Deprivation of Rights litigation.

You both know these things already, but go ahead and argue about what God gave you.

-HVS over & out!


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

He is right in theory . But in the real world what rights we have boils down to a simple 5-4 vote on the court. It has nothing to do with what a peace of paper called the Constitution says. They can change that any time they want with a 5 -4 vote.
Keep up the fight.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The rights we have in the real world amount to those we will stand up to defend. The federal courts are not given the constitutional power to decide what our rights are - those decisions are left to the individual and extend as far as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. There are no "constitutional" laws concerning what guns we can have or how we can carry them. The right extends, at least, to any arm carried by the common infantryman in the service of the military.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

PaulS said:


> The rights we have in the real world amount to those we will stand up to defend. The federal courts are not given the constitutional power to decide what our rights are - those decisions are left to the individual and extend as far as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. There are no "constitutional" laws concerning what guns we can have or how we can carry them. The right extends, at least, to any arm carried by the common infantryman in the service of the military.


 That maybe but they have the DHS and many LE agency and the military to back up their unconstitutional laws . We need to change the leadership.
If war comes it comes but many of us will not be around to see how it comes out.


----------



## Hawaii Volcano Squad (Sep 25, 2013)

*SCOTUS April 18th Conference*



Smitty901 said:


> That maybe but they have the DHS and many LE agency and the military to back up their unconstitutional laws . We need to change the leadership.


Thomas Jefferson said "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"

Who the leadership is does not change the People's rights.

I wanted to share an important upcoming Supreme Court 2nd Amendment event with you all.

"Apr 2 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2014." from:

Search - Supreme Court of the United States

This is the Drake NJ carry permit case, appealed to SCOTUS, and in the last filing the Pertua case was cited.

So on the 18th there will be a conference and the Supreme Court's thoughts may be released on the 21st of this month.

The rift between the various Federal Circuit Appeals Courts needs to be consolidated.

Here is the ending of a 20 page long Pro 2A brief:

"Were this Court to allow the opinion below to stand, it would strongly signal that Heller and McDonald are not serious, binding opinions. The Second Amendment right is "fundamental," but it can only be exercised if the state agrees it's a good idea; can be overridden by modern "legislative judgments" backed by nothing; sets out rules that are wholly swallowed by the fact that guns have always been regulated or by "longstanding" laws enacted at any time; and is wholly respected by practices disabling 99.98% of the populationfrom exercising the "rights" it secures.

This is simply not how rights function under our Constitution. The petition should be granted."

Keep the good thought, and pray for the wisdom contained within the Constitution & Bill of Rights to light up our nation with Freedom. :idea:


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Hoot all you want about minor victories, they won't do you any good. You talk about rights as if they are privileges. You have no 2nd amendment rights on the island at all. Only a few, regulated privileges.


----------



## Hawaii Volcano Squad (Sep 25, 2013)

*District of Columbia v. Heller*

I invite you to visit the Big Island. With regard to Gun Rights, it is not that bad but the carry code clearly is unconstitutional in the light of SCOTUS ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller & McDonald plus the Peruta, Richards, & Baker rulings in the 9th Federal circuit court. With regard to buying guns and owning them, you can purchase most anything. Only handguns have a waiting period, not long guns.

However my reason for this posting tonight is that while waiting for the 18th SCOTUS conference on the DRAKE case, I actually read Heller & McDonald, or at least I started to until I realized it was 214 pages long! I was prompted by the Washington Post article retired Justice Stevens [1975-2010]: "The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment" which was an excerpt from his new book "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution." Really a good thing he is not on the court at the moment.

I will link the new article and the 214 page Heller/McDonald SCOTUS ruling below but here was I found most important: *It was all about protecting Freed Slaves' rights to own firearms!*
The court reviewed the historical context of the 14th Amendment and here it is. Federalism over States rights after the Civil War.
After the Civil War Southern States systematically attempted to disarm and injure Black people after the war and in 1866 the northern abolitionists in the 39th Congress passed Freedmen's Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Act SPECIFICALLY TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO KEEP & BEAR ARMS FOR BLACK PEOPLE IN post civil war America. Later legal scholar's recognized the new Federal Law as insufficient legislative remedies to the task and adopted the 14th amendment with it's DUE PROCESS clause and EQUAL RIGHTS ACT. It was intended as an EQUAL RIGHT to keep & bear ARMS.

This is important because it makes ALL STATES subject to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So when it is argued that each State has different concerns about Firearms laws, the States must conform to Federal law and the Constitution with regard to Constitutional rights. SO under Heller & McDonald, the States must follow Federal Court rulings because of the 14th amendment. 

The 14th Amendment forces the States to follow the 2nd Amendment. Prior, States claimed it as a right not necessary to rational civil discourse since in other countries all guns were banned and it works there so States could adopt and follow Gun Laws that work in foreign lands if they like regardless of what the Federal Government law was. No Longer.

THE GOOD NEWS is that even Justice Stevens thinks that the 2nd Amendment would need to be changed to overturn the Heller & McDonald rulings redefining what a militia is today as a professional military force. *THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN* and gun control people are stuck with the Bill of Rights as it is.

We should get good news from the 18th conference after the weekend break, but still this is the Supreme Court we are talking about.
I was encouraged by the completeness of the SCOTUS ruling as compared to the very short Federal circuit court rulings.

If my explanation seems long winded, try reading the entire 214 pages of District of Columbia v. Heller below. This is the SHORT version!

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment - The Washington Post


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

PaulS said:


> There are no "constitutional" laws concerning what guns we can have or how we can carry them.


 Actually there is "bear". We are limited by our ability to carry the gun.

Sawed off shot guns are not legal because of the inability to control the shot. Fully automatic guns follow that same reasoning. It is not enough to say states can regulate these because the Second Amendment recognizes this as a Federal protection against all governments. Therefore there must some Federal understanding so that we can carry in every state.

We are not to a complete understanding of this protection against government persecution of gun rights. Therefore it is important to understand all state carry laws while traveling unless you have time and money to fight the detailed variations state to state.


----------



## Hawaii Volcano Squad (Sep 25, 2013)

My daily rant covering the Drake New jersey handgun Supreme Court Appeal case which appears to have been delayed another week. To date the Drake Appeal has not been granted OR denied. Awaiting some kind of Supreme court action. Also I cover how the 14th Amendment ties into the racism issue in the NBA & Clive Bundy current event topics. Plus my Rant against Putin & the Red Dawn Invasion of Ukraine. Is this the start of WW III ?
[Google blocked out 20 seconds where I mentioned DuckDuckgo the competing search engine. AMAZING that they have added that words DUCKDUCKGO to the words that are automatically deleted even if you just mention those words in passing. So they don't let you speak the words: "DuckDuckGo" in a youtube rant! The "F bomb" had no problems going through!]


----------

