News


Court overturns restrictions on concealed weapons in California

Judicial panel's 2-1 decision stems from challenge to San Diego law

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco struck down a San Diego law Thursday that restricted the concealed carry of firearms except in cases where an individual could prove they were in exceptional danger.

In a 2-1 decision, the panel found that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects not only the right of individuals to own guns but also the right to carry them for the purposes of self-defense.

"Carrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self defense is a central component of the right to bear arms," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, a Reagan appointee, wrote in the majority opinion.

The court found San Diego's restrictions on concealed carry unreasonably burdensome, agreeing with the plaintiffs, five San Diego residents who were either denied concealed-carry licenses or did not apply because they did not meet the requirements, that simple self-defense was "good cause" enough to obtain a concealed carry license.

Because California regulates the open carry of firearms to only a few exceptional cases, such as retired law enforcement officers, the state must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms, the court wrote in its decision.

State law does permit concealed carry for persons who are of "good moral character," complete a required training course, and show "good cause" for seeking the permit, according to the court.

The state leaves the permitting process and definition of "good cause" up to local governments, but the court found that San Diego's definition was unconstitutionally narrow.

The court cited two recent landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in making its decision. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the right to bear arms applies to individuals, as opposed to only state-run militias, and concluded in 2010 that the right can be enforced against state and local governments.

Thursday's 9th Circuit decision argued that the precedent set in those two cases means that California must allow law-abiding citizens the option to carry firearms outside the home for the purposes of self-defense, whether by allowing open or concealed carry.

The decision "upends the entire California firearm regulatory scheme," Judge Sidney Thomas, a Clinton appointee, wrote in his dissent to Thursday's ruling.

The decision delivers a "needless, sweeping judicial blow to the public safety discretion invested in local law enforcement officers and to California's carefully constructed firearm regulatory scheme," Thomas wrote.

— Bay City News Service

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stewart
a resident of Danbury Park
on Feb 17, 2014 at 8:18 am

I am not surprised at all with the ruling and if California is not careful and it goes on to the Supreme Court they stand the chance to have the entire law ruled unconstitutional. I read the case and basically it throws it back to California to rewrite the law. If they don't they may lose all of it. The provision which is a problem says that it is up to the local entity or Sheriff to decide just cause for issuance and the law says "may" issue and not "must" issue. Far to subjective and will never stand up in the Supreme Court and is probably currently in violation of the Supreme Courts most recent ruling. The bad guys are not getting concealed weapons permits so do not be deceived that this is anything other than an infringement on peoples second amendment rights.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Educated
a resident of Foothill High School
on Feb 17, 2014 at 8:38 am

Does anyone know what this means for Alameda County, where it's nearly impossible to get a CC permit? And is the change immediate, or do we have to wait for months or years of legal wrangling?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stewart
a resident of Danbury Park
on Feb 17, 2014 at 9:00 am

Educated,

The old law has been stricken down immediately. This means that as long as you have been trained you should be issued a concealed weapons permit. If you apply they may drag it out awhile but they cannot deny you. They are now concerned about personal liability for unlawful denial. By the way, concealed weapons permits have been always easy to get outside of Alameda, SF, and LA counties and are good throughout the state.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 17, 2014 at 9:17 am

Stewart wrote: "The bad guys are not getting concealed weapons permits so do not be deceived that this is anything other than an infringement on peoples second amendment rights."

So in your black-or-white view of the world, recent concealed-carry permit gun shooters like George Zimmerman (shot and killed an unarmed teenager), Curtis Reeves (shot and killed a man for throwing popcorn at him), and Michael Dunn (fired 10 shots at a group of teenagers for not turning down their loud music, killing one of them) are "good guys"? Not only did these three concealed carry "good guys" kill unarmed people, but they also endangered the lives of other members of the public by carelessly and irresponsibly launching high-velocity steel projectiles (i.e., bullets) in public places because of perceived slights to their fragile egos.

Some "bad guys" (people who lack the maturity and/or judgement to carry a deadly weapon) do get concealed weapons permits. Welcome to the real world, Stewart, and not the black-and-white one presented by your monthly NRA magazine.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stewart
a resident of Danbury Park
on Feb 17, 2014 at 9:39 am

Sam,

Not a member of the NRA but just an American who believe in the constitution and does not call people names or insults them. Anyone who breaks the law should deal with the consequences. If you can respond respectfully I welcome the dialogue.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 17, 2014 at 9:53 am

Stewart, I've stated my point. I looked over my previous post and for the record I don't believe that I called you any "names". Usually when I do make use of "names" it's one like "buffoon", "idiot", "imbecile", or "moron", but I don't see any of those words in my previous post. But I do apologize for my harsh tone and for insulting you. Please don't shoot me for that. (That was a joke, Stewart).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:01 am

It will take a while, and a lot of public education, but repeal of the second amendment is the best solution to these problems.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stewart
a resident of Danbury Park
on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:03 am

Sam,

Accepted and I wouldn't shoot anyone :) Sam, do you shoot?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gabby
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:22 am

Well, it's reassuring to know that someone will get arrested and 'pay the price' after they've shot and killed someone. Daughter: "Hey, Daddy, look at the man going into the theatre with a gun!" Daddy: "Don't worry, Honey, if he shoots any of the people inside he'll get arrested." Like I say, very reassuring.

BTW, for those who've never taken a California firearms test, the test-taker can miss every single question regarding guns and child safety (e.g., 'Can someone sell his private weapon to a minor?'), and still pass the test. But better yet, if someone fails the test, they can re-take the same test, same questions, same answers, almost immediately after being told what the answers are after one's first fail. Wouldn't, after all, want to get in the way of the gun industry's right to make a profit! I think that's in the Constitution, too.

Daughter: "Daddy, why did that man shoot those people in the theatre?" Daddy: "He was just a little high-strung, that's all, Honey. Someone disagreed with him and he thinks disagreement is tantamount to calling him names."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:33 am

@Stewart
No, I don't shoot. Shot a .22 rifle a few times when I was a kid, but that's it. Oh, and once when I was in college I came home and found that my brother had a "bang-stick" (I think it was called?) he was playing around with, which was basically a small piece of machined metal that looked like a short cylinder that you could insert a .22 bullet into and hit with a hammer to shoot it off. Very dangerous. I took it away from him. He screamed to my mother about it and she (perhaps busy with the other kids and not realizing what it was) told me to give it back to him. I threw it away. So began my days as a "gun grabber".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by liberalism is a disease
a resident of Birdland
on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:40 am

liberalism is a disease is a registered user.

john, I bet you're a big fan of Nazi Germany and the gun ban imposed on the Jews. How did that work out? Maybe you are the one who needs 'educating'.

Stewart, Sam seems to be going off half-cocked and shooting off his mouth, so in that regard, he does shoot. Most people who are so afraid of guns have never used one, for target practice or hunting.

No one dares mention the stats on people with guns defending themselves, their families and their property. Only the rare instance where someone goes off the rails and uses a gun (as opposed to using a knife, baseball bat, a car....etc). The facts about gun use disarms their emotional and ignorant arguments.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:42 am

Gabby wrote: "Daughter: "Hey, Daddy, look at the man going into the theatre with a gun!" Daddy: "Don't worry, Honey, if he shoots any of the people inside he'll get arrested." Like I say, very reassuring."

One aspect of the Curtis Reeves theater popcorn shooting case that I don't think was sufficiently emphasized in the news was how much this shooter endangered the lives of everyone else in the theater - men, women, and children alike - by impulsively drawing a gun and shooting it like he did. Bullets can and do ricochet. Everyone in that theater was at risk of serious injury or death once high-speed metal projectiles start flying. There was a recent case in San Francisco in which one armed robber accidentally killed his accomplice because the bullet ricocheted off the jawbone of the robbery victim and hit one of the robbers. Nice instance of karma, but also a reminder of how dangerous and uncontrollable the flight paths of bullets can be.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Stoneridge
on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:45 am

john - The Bill of Rights don't "grant" us anything. They are a list of inherent rights that our country's founders believed were absolutely necessary to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government. As such, the Bill of Rights protects each citizen's inherent rights from government restrictions. So, in effect, the Bill of Rights is really a Bill of Restrictions upon Tyrannical Government Power.

So you are actually suggesting that we need to get rid of one restriction on Tyrannical Power and discard an inherent human right of self protection.

By the way, you can measure how tyrannical government officials have become by the way the regard the Bill of Rights. How many times do we hear:

- not all speech is protected
- not all reporters are "real" reporters worthy of 1st amendment protection
- the government needs to protect Church workers from Church beliefs
- the 2nd Amendment needs to be regulated and eventually abolished
- the 3rd Amendment didn't prevent police from forcibly entering homes in the search for the Boston bombers.
- the 4th Amendment is seen as an impediment to security. The NSA, law enforcement and government in general regularly find ways to skirt our inherent right against unlawful search and seizure.
- how many times does the Federal government retry someone for the same crime, except in the guise of a discrimination crime (5th amendment).
- our government is now targeting US citizens with drone strikes. No trial needed, just assassinate them.
- the government is now taking land from people for use as "open space".
- the government doesn't even understand or acknowledge that the 9th Amendment has any meaning. If a right isn't listed in the Constitution, it effectively doesn't exist.

So please don't help a government sliding toward tyranny to eliminate any more of our inherent rights. Who's side are you on anyway?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stewart
a resident of Danbury Park
on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:50 am

Sam,

Guns can be a good hobby if trained properly on how to safely use one. I do not think it is for everyone and respects everyone's opinion to use or not to use.

I started using firearms when I was a little kid. The early years for me was on a farm in the Ozarks and I learned early on about fishing and hunting and has been enjoyed since.

The gun laws in this state are odd and are different for different weapons. Long guns, shotguns, and handguns in my view should be treated the same. Nobody with a criminal felony should have one. Anyone trying to get one should have their mental health history open for review and they should be disqualified from having one....ever.

Contrary to what Gabby says above. When applying to purchase a handgun you must pass a test and score correctly on 22 out of 30 questions and no you do not get the gun if you fail the test and no cannot retake it immediately. The test is a joke but one put together by the DOJ. Sample question but representative of the rest...Drinking alcohol while handling firearms is safe if you blood alcohol level stays below the legal limit true false, leaving a loaded firearm in open view unattended in a house with children is not ok true false. After passing the test you must demonstrate that you know how to safety use the weapon to a licensed professional (in my case it is to the former sheriff of Kern County), you then must be fingerprinted and have a criminal background check completed before getting your firearm. The mental health check and a gun safety class should also be added. After this has been done then yes I believe that people should be issued concealed weapons permits.

Law enforcement is not the problem in this state but rather our court system and the police will tell you that. They will also tell you that they cannot protect you and your family because there are simply not enough of them.

Have a great day everyone. Going outside to enjoy the day and ride my bike.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 17, 2014 at 12:17 pm

"So please don't help a government sliding toward tyranny to eliminate any more of our inherent rights. Who's side are you on anyway?"

I'm on the side of those who argued against the second amendment, and those who continue to argue against it. There is nothing sacred or ordained about what the founders wrote. If the second amendment ever had any usefulness, that usefulness has passed.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They probably weren't thinking of hydrogen bombs or weaponized designer viruses, and nerve gas when they wrote that.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gabby
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 17, 2014 at 12:17 pm

Stewart says: "Contrary to what Gabby says above. When applying to purchase a handgun you must pass a test and score correctly on 22 out of 30 questions and no you do not get the gun if you fail the test and no cannot retake it immediately."

Stewart misreads me. I stated that one can miss every single question on the 30-question exam that pertains to gun safety and minors and still pass the test. I guess he's not bothered by this?

And, yes, after failing the test, one must wait 24 hours to re-take it. So, fail the test, get the right answers from the test administrator (i.e., the gun salesman who wants badly to sell you a gun), come back the next day and take it again. Thanks for the qualification, Stewart. What's not to like? Does everybody feel safer now?

And I bet the thought of putting guns in the hands of some of the paranoid posters on these threads -- the government will only back away from your door once you show them your .22!!!!! -- sends a warm flow of reassurance among us all.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Stoneridge
on Feb 17, 2014 at 12:33 pm

john - you win. I certainly can't debate hyperbole.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Citizen
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 17, 2014 at 3:25 pm

Molon Labe


 +   Like this comment
Posted by SomeCommonSense
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 17, 2014 at 9:31 pm

The only justifiable use of a gun for self defense is in a home break-in situation. Making the decision to kill or mame someone in a public place flys in the face of the U.S. justice system and anyone's definition of freedom. If people can shoot you without any proof of guilt, you are not safe or free and this is not a nation of laws. Yes, people are afriad, the world is a dangerous place; guns make some people feel powerful and safe. There are bad people who can hurt you. The moment you take a gun out in public, you are a potential bad guy. Everyone is law-abiding, until they're not. At the very least taking a gun out in public shows profoundly poor judgement. The rare incident when a gun owner gets to play hero are dwarfed by the damage done by making so readily available a tool that makes killing easy.
Do us all a favor, if you are too afraid to go out in public without having a concealed weapon to whip out if someone frightens or angers you, stay home.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stewart
a resident of Danbury Park
on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:00 pm

To all good discussion all around. Gabby I am still not understanding when you say you can miss all of the answers and still get the gun because according to DOJ law you must pass 75% of the questions or get 22 out of the 30 answers correct to qualify. If you fail you have a two week grace period before you can retake the test. Sam I respect you for what you believe and if you believe that you should not have a weapon well that is what makes this country the greatest on earth or used to be and hopefully in the near future we can approve to where we were in the eyes of the world. Sam, good for you. John, I have read the constitution, the constitutional papers, as well as the articles of confederation and I am not aware of any of our founding fathers arguing against the 2nd amendment. As matter of fact I believe Thomas Jefferson is the one who said "the second amendment will not be important to people until the government attempts to take it away" or something to that effect. Citizen, I do not believe they will ever attempt to "come and take them" but if they do it will be an interesting time. Commonsense, you have an interesting viewpoint but has nothing to do with the constitution or personal freedoms but rather diminishing or removing them but again you do not have to carry a weapon if you choose not to…………..I however do. The bike ride was great. 34.5 miles and a little sore. Good week to all of you. I would encourage all of you to read the constitution and the federalist papers. My understanding is that the schools stopped teaching them…..cheers


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gabby
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 17, 2014 at 11:53 pm

Twice, Stewart, I stated quite clearly that a test-taker can miss all questions THAT HAVE TO DO WITH GUNS AND MINORS -- you know, like leaving loaded guns around in the house with kids, or selling or lending one's gun to a minor -- and STILL answer correctly enough (other) questions to pass the exam. So, BLAMMMM! "Oh, I left the loaded gun on my kitchen table with my kids in the house? Oh well, tragedies happen, after all, and, shucks, that must have been one those test questions I got wrong."

If your reading comprehension is as dismal as you've exhibited here, then your reading of the Constitution and Federalist Papers appears to have been something of a waste of time. (I believe you've also failed to grasp the arguments of John and Sam, respectively. And your rather fractured grammar/prose gives yet further evidence that you have some reading/comprehension difficulties. But, hey, that's what makes America great. A poor reader can get on these sites and say whatever the heck he wants to, no matter how misinformed or inane his comments happen to be.)

Yes, careful readings of the Constitution and Federalist Papers are still emphasized in school. Stress: careful -- you know, as in readings that show comprehension? BTW, did you know that our president, Barack Obama, was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Roz
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 18, 2014 at 7:06 am

@Gabby


A couple of things for you to consider. First, I have been reading what you wrote and it is very hard to understand and secondly people will take you seriously in life if you express yourself without personal attacks. It is the right, moral, and ladylike thing to do.



Best regards and please improve


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 18, 2014 at 7:47 am

Stewart,

Please consider the sources of what you read. Your Thomas Jefferson quote appears to be a fabrication:

Web Link

"We currently have no evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it" or any of its listed variations."

Further, I'm sure you're aware that many Federalists argued against the need for a bill of rights in the first place.

And, of course, there are arguments against the second amendment today.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 18, 2014 at 7:50 am

"I would encourage all of you to read the constitution and the federalist papers. My understanding is that the schools stopped teaching them"

Again, consider the source of this information. Some talk radio hosts and certain web sites (and chain emails) are known for their exaggerated claims.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 18, 2014 at 7:56 am

Another point that should be noted is that even if one has a concealed gun permit, that doesn't mean that you can freely take the gun anywhere. Airports and courthouses will of course continue to ban guns from their premises. Also if concealed carry becomes more widespread, expect more businesses (coffee shops, restaurants, theaters, etc.) to explicitly ban guns from being brought onto their property. And, no, they're not violating anyone's 2nd Amendment rights in doing that. They are allowed to set the rules of conduct for use of their property just as you're able to set the rules of conduct for any guest to your house.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 18, 2014 at 8:14 am

John wrote: "Please consider the sources of what you read. Your Thomas Jefferson quote appears to be a fabrication:"

Thanks for fact-checking that, John.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sarah P.
a resident of Happy Valley
on Feb 18, 2014 at 9:24 am

Well, to quote one of own local politicians in response to another equally divided issue...

"This doors wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not!"

When the 9th CC suddenly starts to defend the Constitution you might want to reconsider what you hold as prejudices, fears and personal opinions and begin to use reason, facts and the law to base your "opinions" upon.

I've had a concealed carry permit for over 11 years and have had a cute little Glock 27 in my clutch for the past year to the knowledge of none of our friends until last Christmas when I finally "came out of the closet" and I now have three new friends for ladies day at the range.

We're always looking for new members, gun phobics especially welcome!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 18, 2014 at 9:54 am

Hi Sara P,

Just for the record, I'm all for defending the constitution. That's why I believe the best approach is a repeal of the second amendment.

As far as " reason, facts and the law " go, you might also want to consider that crime rates nationwide are down to 50 year lows.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 18, 2014 at 10:43 am

Sarah wrote: "I've had a concealed carry permit for over 11 years and have had a cute little Glock 27 in my clutch for the past year to the knowledge of none of our friends until last Christmas when I finally "came out of the closet" and I now have three new friends for ladies day at the range. We're always looking for new members, gun phobics especially welcome!"

There's a time and place for everything. I have no problems with your enjoying using your gun on a gun range. That's an appropriate place. On the other hand, if I'm holding my daughter's birthday party at my house, your gun is not welcome. Not being "gun-phobic". Your chainsaw isn't welcome at the party, either. Leave both at home or locked in your car.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gabby
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 18, 2014 at 11:46 am

So, Roz, I've been reading your comments, and I understand how you might have difficulty understanding my above posts. I bet your have difficulty understanding a lot of other people's posts as well.

Since, by your own admission, you're incapable of following any of the arguments posed above, you instead presume to tell me what you think is ladylike and what is not. Oh, and you suggest I might be as successful as you have been in life. Now, that's something I really, really want to strive for.

Do you have anything you want to say about the issues at hand -- you know, like guns, gun laws, permits, etc? I didn't think so.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sarah P.
a resident of Happy Valley
on Feb 18, 2014 at 1:21 pm

The 2nd Ammendment just seems to be one of those nasty little perks (or inconveniences to some) that the Constitution affords us poor citizens. The right to defend ourselves with a firearm. Not to shoot at the range or hunt, but to defend ourselves against any perceived theat we may encounter and if that means by use of deadly force then we have what is known as a Juducial System that will convict and penalize anyone who uses deadly force in an improper or illegal manner. Some of the Gun-Phobes will not understand ths but one of the first things you are taught about using a firearm is that you NEVER point a gun at a living thing unless you have an intent to kill that living being. In over 30 years of having/owning a firearm, 11 years with a CCW and over a year with my little 27 by my side no public or private establishment (government buildings, or other prohibited areas aside) has been made aware of my firearm on my person. Which is precisely how and why it is called a Concealed Carry Permit. You never know who is carrying and that is precisely what I want any would be criminal to think anytime they have any intent to commit a crime against my family.

Gun free zones = Criminal free reign zones Sam. Just for your piece of mind you mind want to steer clear of tall reddish brown haired 50 somethings carrying a small red purse.

Have a nice day!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 18, 2014 at 1:45 pm

Sarah P. wrote: "You never know who is carrying and that is precisely what I want any would be criminal to think anytime they have any intent to commit a crime against my family. Gun free zones = Criminal free reign zones Sam. Just for your piece of mind you mind want to steer clear of tall reddish brown haired 50 somethings carrying a small red purse. "

Your gun gives you a false sense of security, Sarah. If I were criminally inclined, and I were thinking of robbing you and your small red purse, then I would act on the assumption that you might be armed and would plan and act accordingly. Gun or no gun, you wouldn't have a chance. As they say, easy-peasy. You may think that you have the element of surprise on your side, but that's often not how it works in real life.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Easy-Peasy
a resident of Foothill Farms
on Feb 18, 2014 at 1:54 pm

I might add that anyone carrying a concealed gun would have a higher target value. "I get your $50 AND your handgun? Thank you, Ma'am."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 18, 2014 at 1:55 pm

"Gun free zones = Criminal free reign zones"

Not sure I want to fly on a commercial airliner that allowed concealed carry of firearms. Would you?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sarah P.
a resident of Happy Valley
on Feb 18, 2014 at 3:41 pm

Oh Sam how sweet! Does my little G27 scare you? Maybe that false sense of security might seem to come from simply carrying a gun but there's MUCH more to it than that.

A dozen years in the Navy, a couple of tours with the San Mateo Sherifs Dept. and a lifetime of firearms training, that's where my confidence and security comes from. I'm sure somebody will be there for you, maybe even little old me?

Have a nice day!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sammy Got a Gun
a resident of Charter Oaks
on Feb 18, 2014 at 3:47 pm

All US citizens should have the right to bear arms as was intended by the Constitution. We never should've had to apply and pay for CC permits, as the laws had infringed on our rights that were originally given to us. Everyone should be able do protect their person or family from deadly threats period!

It is up to the individual to handle their weapons with dicipline and not pull them out at the drop of a hat. You have to be willing to let some things go, rather than shoot up the place just because your armed and cocky. Some people get that "I've gone to citizens police academy or got my CC permit and I'm almost a cop mentality" then they get all emotional and blow their stack when they feel slighted.

There aren't any crazy guns, only crazy people that may use one. These types are generally weeded out by their own undoing. Other than monitoring the behavior of the people that are around you, there isn't much that any person or law can do to prevent the nutwads and criminals from acting out here and there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 18, 2014 at 4:24 pm

@Sarah
As I said, I think that your gun gives you a false sense of security and "Gun or no gun, you wouldn't have a chance" against a determined robber. Don't understand why you think that your off-tangent and somewhat incoherent reply was any sort of valid rebuttal to the points I made. In fact, I was bit surprised and disappointed how weak it was. Maybe you want to try again?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 18, 2014 at 4:29 pm

"SGG" wrote "There aren't any crazy guns, only crazy people that may use one. These types are generally weeded out by their own undoing."

Yeah, well unfortunately oftentimes they're only "weeded out" AFTER they've done irreparable damage to the lives of others.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Right
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 18, 2014 at 6:39 pm

Sam, if you're so afraid of guns, don't carry one. It's your right. It is not your right to demand that others give up their method of self protection. If you're still afraid, stay at home on your computer and continue trying to tell people why they shouldn't abide by the second amendment.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by History Buff
a resident of Parkside
on Feb 18, 2014 at 9:34 pm

A classroom of kids dies here and there, but what's that compared to our Founders' stress upon the need for concealed handguns? It was Jefferson who said: "No intruder from Oakland will tread on me as long as I'm toting a Magnum .44 in my knapsack." For those ignoramuses who are too lazy to look up the quote, it's in the Federalist Papers, in the final (13th) chapter.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 18, 2014 at 11:33 pm

History Buff wrote: "It was Jefferson who said: "No intruder from Oakland will tread on me as long as I'm toting a Magnum .44 in my knapsack.""

Unfortunately, certain gun proponents do seem to build up a Walter Miityesque fantasy world in their minds in which they imagine themselves springing into action and fearlessly saving others with their gun like a movie action hero. I smiled when Sarah P. suggested that she might someday save me with her trusty gun. The hard truth is much more prosaic than the fantasy image in Sarah's mind. In truth, Sarah's beloved and trusty gun is much more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, homicide, or a suicide attempt than defending anyone's life, including her own. ( Web Link ).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by SomeCommonSense
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 19, 2014 at 7:19 am

Sam,
People who don't carry weapons have rights too. The would-be vigilantes out there make living more dangerous for everyone. If only criminals have guns, they are easier to trace, identify, and arrest. The right to LIFE in the constitution outweighs the right to belong to a militia in order to defend the newly formed country of the United States. Areas of the country that are remote, where there is a reasonable need to defend yourself from a wild animal, can be zoned for appropriate gun use. The object of civilization is to have people coexist without violence. You take the absurd idea that any fool with money can buy themselves a weapon that can end someone's life in a fraction of a second and follow it to the logical conclusion and you have people shooting others because they were too loud in the parking lot, or annoying at the movie theater.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Parent
a resident of Valley View Elementary School
on Feb 19, 2014 at 5:25 pm

So how does that work with people carrying guns on school campuses? Happened at our school 2 weeks ago........


 +   Like this comment
Posted by History Buff
a resident of Parkside
on Feb 19, 2014 at 5:35 pm

Dear Parent,

I guess you'd have to file that under how Socialist public schools tyrannically squash freedom-seeking individual's constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by But He Doesn't Want You To Have One
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 19, 2014 at 11:47 pm

Sam's the type that says he hates guns but really has one or two at the house. He's quick to spew his anti-gun tirades, but has yet to answer as to whether he actually owns one?

Sounds like your brother was the problem and not the stick. Wonder where he's lurking at now? Tell us why was your momma too busy to notice that her son had fashioned a "Bang Stick" in her absence? Are too many kids an excuse for gun accidents or should we train our children to safely handle a firearm? Why didn't your dad show you guys how to shoot, so such silliness could be avoided completely? Why would such an incident turn you into a gun grabbing phobic? Is this some more twisted logic from the armchair hypocrite!

P.S. You know it's a sign of a condescending charlatan, that you must "quote" everyone and take things out of context like some sort of sanctimonious Goody Two-shoes!

P.P.S. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 20, 2014 at 8:02 am

"Sam's the type that says he hates guns but really has one or two at the house."

No, I don't. Your very first sentence is garbage (not a very good way to impress anyone) and the rest of your post goes downhill from there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Canyon Meadows
on Feb 20, 2014 at 8:38 am

I thought "But He Doesn't Want You To Have One" made perfect sense.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stewart
a resident of Danbury Park
on Feb 20, 2014 at 2:15 pm

Sam's and others choice to not have a gun is there right and that is fine. To the others I think it would be impossible to ever see the second amendment revoked unless of course there was some splitting up on the United States but that would not be realistic.

When asked what the priorities of the country should be only 2% responded that gun control should be a priority. I would imagine that any elected official outside of California, Mass, New York, and New Jersey who voted for strict gun control or modifying the second amendment would never win another election so it will not happen.

But back CCW. Many of the inland counties as beginning to issue upon request so that is good news. Counties like LA, San Francisco, and Alameda are trying to figure out what to do because of the overturning of the law. To deny now might make individuals who deny open to lawsuits so they are treading lightly.

Sarah P. why did you go for the .40 caliber 27 rather than the 9MM 26? Knockdown power? I have the 19 and really like it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pololo MOlolo
a resident of Livermore
on Feb 20, 2014 at 3:31 pm

The First Lady NANCITA carried a tiny gun under her armpit. She even bragged about it and emphasized that it was just a itsy bitsy (loaded) gun!

She never mentioned if it smelled but she did say it was tiny and cute.

Bless her evil little heart!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by History Buff
a resident of Parkside
on Feb 20, 2014 at 4:21 pm

Thank you, Stewart, for expressing what all of us believe. All those innocents, all those classrooms of students, who have died at the hands of Constitution-loving-wackos-with-guns no doubt died happily, as they were exercising their Constitutional right to not carry a gun in public.

I want to commend you for your really well thought out positions here.

And when you refer to only 2% of the country thinking further gun control is necessary -- outside of most populated states, as you reminds us -- you're no doubt truthfully referring to 98% of those people who live in the 'country' right? You know, your brethren who hunt for beaver and squirrels for their paws which are used to scrape the tobacco juice stains off their teeth/tooth?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Derek
a resident of Ironwood
on Feb 20, 2014 at 5:31 pm

If an individual chooses not to own a firearm that is fine and dandy. It's when they start telling others what they should do with theirs that it crosses the line. Mind your own business!

There are many people that are simply afraid of, or they are ignorant as to how to handle a weapon safely. The more you are educated about such matters, the less fear and irrational anxiety you will have in a crisis situation. Muscle memory becomes second nature.

To suggest that Sarah will somehow choke under pressure just shows how little regard you have for the woman and in the training that she's received. Very predictable considering the source.....however I'd feel safer in knowing that she was watching my back rather than some uppity ninny in his glass mansion.

Some people are stuck in the Stone Age, and some are still afraid of the Dark too!




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 20, 2014 at 7:02 pm

Derek wrote: "If an individual chooses not to own a firearm that is fine and dandy. It's when they start telling others what they should do with theirs that it crosses the line. Mind your own business!"

Derek, no one would care at all about whether or not people carry concealed weapons except for the fact that certain concealed-carry gun owners have proven themselves to be totally irresponsible. I refer you to the recent cases of Curtis Reeves, who apparently went berzerk over some popcorn, and that of Michael Dunn, who went berzerk over some loud music. It is also not uncommon to read of criminals breaking into houses and stealing guns from legal gun owners who did not properly secure their guns. So you ( and by "you" I mean many legal gun owners collectively) are the ones who crossed the line by creating problems for the rest of society. You secure your guns. You act responsibly with your guns. You don't shoot guns in public because of real or imagined slights. If all gun owners did that then the rest of us couldn't care less about how you spend your free time or how many or what kinds of guns you have. You're the ones who need to get your house in order. You're like a bad neighbor who spreads garbage all over the neighborhood and then tells others to "mind their own business" when they poiint out what a slob you are.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by History Buff
a resident of Parkside
on Feb 20, 2014 at 7:03 pm

And yet another of us deep thinkers who think it is just "fine and dandy" that our children and other innocents "have the right" to be exposed to wackos with guns. And, hey, if the parents of slain kids express concerns about the easiness by which guns are procured in our society, they should follow the advice of our friend Derek-screw-the-kids-because-only-I-count: "Mind your own business you uppity ninnies who are afraid of your own shadows." And as Derek and all those other patriotic country rubes with tobacco-stained teeth want us to know, those kids died exercising their right to let the shooters be oh-so-fine-and-dandy-free.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by One time only
a resident of Birdland
on Feb 20, 2014 at 8:55 pm

HB,

I will explain this to you once and see how it goes. There is a reason nobody responds to your posts and that is because you do not discuss you just lash out and call people names and go off topic. The discussion thread is about concealed weapons and the court ruling against the laws that were on the books and not about repealing the 2nd amendment. Nobody really cares what your opinions are about guns and whether they should be allowed or not. It is the law of the land so you will just have to live with it. Try to copy Sam. Most do not agree with him here but he can present his case without insulting everyone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Uncle Sam
a resident of Country Fair
on Feb 20, 2014 at 9:45 pm

For a history buff you sure don't read or comprehend very well and that's putting it lightly. I said it's fine and dandy if you choose "not" to own a gun. I would rather not have unstables arming themselves when they don't have the appreciation or knowledge. Wackos, slain children or young dead thugs are in NO WAY related to responsible gun owners such as myself. Furthermore we haven't crossed any lines because we aren't the ones that committed any crimes. It's like saying that since you drive a car you must be just like Cody Hall or liable for his behavior. No, he is one alleged hooligan/murderer and while there may be others like him, his alleged crimes aren't the fault of every driver in the U.S.A.

Don't you dare lump or compare all gun owners to the mass shooters and mental defectives that are a vile product of your preciou$ society. We can only control our own actions and won't be held accountable for anyone else!

Your stereotypes are an indicator of how dormant your miniscule melon has become. Your the ones that sound touched for blaming gun owners collectively for incidents in the news. Only fools blame "weapons" for the sicknesses of the mind.

P.S. No I don't smoke or chew tobacco, you wretched, deplorable, maggot!!! Now let's see if you can create a synaptic bulb inferno to warm our hands!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 20, 2014 at 10:32 pm

Sorry to see all the rude comments here.

"It is the law of the land so you will just have to live with it."

But that is my point exactly. The second amendment is currently the law of the land, but with time and effort and education, we will get it repealed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by History Buff
a resident of Parkside
on Feb 20, 2014 at 10:59 pm

I toss out pearls of wisdom and all I get are nonsensical oinks. These oinkers can squeal all they want about what responsible gun owners they are. I don't believe them for an instant. They've expressed no sympathy for dead innocents, nor concern about the fate of innocents in the future. All they care about is me-me-me. I might remind readers that early on in this thread one of the pro-gun squealers took offense at Sam's comments and insisted his comments were freighted with name calling. But such was not the case. The pro-gun squealer had rather severely misread Sam's remarks. I don't want a person who can be so widely off the mark in his reasoning capacity -- as additionally exemplified in virtually all of his other comments -- to be able to carry a concealed gun in public. He, and so many like him, are nothing but a tragedy waiting to happen.

Oh, and those "incidents in the news" referred to so glibly by Uncle Tobacco Spittle Drooling Down His Chin? They are real. Deaths of innocents caused by a person with a weapon designed solely for quick and easy kills.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Derek
a resident of Ironwood
on Feb 21, 2014 at 5:51 am

It seems that you have a penchant for name calling, and the only thing that you are tossing out or emitting is a putrid flatus that you've mistaken for pearls of wisdom.

You are both misguided and ignorant to associate and lump together all gun owners as if we all share a secret cabal with which to ruin society. Where do you get these delusions and why do you insult our intelligence and race simply for being an American gun owner? We are not to blame for any others actions. That is absurd. Hurry, get your head out!

Who are you to assume that we don't care about victims of violence? How do you know that we aren't related to a victim of violence? You assume like a fool that we are uneducated yokels lacking in the proper sophistication to compete with a giant of your mental magnitude? Please, don't embarrass yourself with more tiresome and vacant pronouncements.

Sam does often insult people directly(Sarah)and indirectly(gun owners)as one example. He has also insulted the Navy, Police and women everywhere with his misogynistic remarks earlier. To try to talk down to Sarah as if she's helpless and incapable against a determined assailant due to her gender is par for the course in his self righteous playhouse. Does your wife know of this "habit" you have here, heckling various women from your golden dais? How proud must she be, or is she often out with friends, shopping, getting spa treatments or going to Martha's Vineyard for the summer? One has to wonder...$$$

If you wish to alter the Constitution to suit your whimsy, you are more than welcome to leave our country. And good riddance to you!

P.S. Go shooting if you want as it is your right, and you may just love it!
GO U.S.A.!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 21, 2014 at 7:12 am

Derek wrote: "Where do you get these delusions and why do you insult our intelligence and race simply for being an American gun owner?"

Derek, in your long harangue this particular sentence struck me as being especially strange. What did you mean by "intelligence and race"? No one brought up the issue of race - until you did just now. Perhaps you inadvertently gave us all a glimpse into your world view?

I enjoy a lively debate and it would be great if you could offer any thoughtful counterpoints to any of the points I've made in this thread. But all you did is write a long post filled with insults and short on facts.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Formerly Dan from BC
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Feb 21, 2014 at 8:47 am

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Yes...guns are like, so bad!

Web Link

Notice how the thug had a hand gun. I wonder if he purchased it legally?

And for those dreamers who think banning all guns would prevent them from infiltrating our populace please look at how well the drug war has done in stemming illegal drug sales.

Laughable.

Sincerely,

Dan


 +   Like this comment
Posted by History Buff
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 21, 2014 at 9:44 am

The paranoia of Derek ("intelligence and race") and Dan (who leaps to the conclusion that all critics of liberal concealed handgun laws want to "ban all guns"), gives confirming credibility to the idea that some -- such as those I just mentioned -- should not be allowed anywhere near a gun.
Put forward a valid claim, and these paranoiacs regard you as a name caller; refute their silly claims and they think you're insulting their intelligence, gender, and/or race. (Psychologically speaking, we're not at all far removed from the paranoid shooter who thought the kids' loud music was directed at him.) Parents of children in Pleasanton ... be afraid for your children and don't let them meander onto a curmudgeon's front lawn. Lots of unstable personalities populate this town.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Martha
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 21, 2014 at 11:00 am


There are real suicidal drivers who kill others in the process, get-away drivers, unlicensed drivers, incompetent drivers, drunk drivers, all using a very deadly weapon. So, according to the lame and illogical comments above, we must, absolutely must disallow car ownership. No matter how good a driver, there are 'some' who are not. . . just cannot risk living life. Right?
There are daily news stories of cruel parents who have chained, beaten, starved children, and caretakers who abuse elders. All our laws, tests, and restrictions do not stop the intentional cruelty.
So, for the good of all let us require mental and competence tests of all citizens AND residents. Then who tests the testers (who are often unstable themselves).
Actually, we do desperately need to require all 18 yr old citizen/residents pay for and take courses in a basic financial course on debt, 20 year cost and legal responsibility of providing for and educating each child, and require birth control/IUDs if already on public assistance/ not providing for existing children. Think of all the money fights and murders that would be prevented, children that are 'wanted', and end theft against taxpayers who are forced to provide for stupid, irresponsible breeders.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by History Buff
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 21, 2014 at 11:32 am

Cars are made for transportation. Guns are designed, manufactured, and sold to enable humans to kill other humans in a quick and easy manner. Just how squishy must your mental matter be that you cannot grasp that?

Cars and guns. Are you six years old? Please tell me you do not own a gun and that your parents keep you shuttered away for your own good and the good of others.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Formerly Dan from BC
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Feb 21, 2014 at 1:13 pm

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

History Buff,

"...who leaps to the conclusion that all critics of liberal concealed handgun laws want to "ban all guns"" --->"should not be allowed anywhere near a gun"

Nice moral equivalence you have there...

Just admit you don't like any guns and get over yourself.

You're really not that bright.

Sincerely,

Dan


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Derek
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 21, 2014 at 6:29 pm

Derek is a registered user.

Referring to gun owners as "country rubes with tobacco stained teeth" is name calling and archaic racial stereotyping you pathetic ignoramus!

We certainly aren't paranoid, you obtuse windbag! That's reserved for close-minded blowhards like you and Sam. You two are the ones whining and crying like irrational children without a pacifier or teat to suckle.

The History Bug likes to pidgeonhole people into a tidy group, for easy access to accommodate a tiny brains workload. Keep ranting like a lunatic about the evil guns and victims that you do so much for. Do the guns shoot themselves? Cars may not be designed to kill but they are wielded as weapons and they kill far more people than assault rifles in theaters and schools. So should we get rid of all the evil cars while were at it? You are far more at risk driving to get that fancy coffee or Sushi you probably get across town. Hmmm? You are amusing, like a turtle on its back, you struggle mightily to grasp even the simplest of concepts!

1.) You can't take away the gun or change the Constitution to suit your beliefs.
2.) Blaming weapons of any kind for what people do is misguided and foolish.
3.) Citizens shall be allowed to protect their person and loved ones from true deadly threats.
4.) In the hands of a sick mind almost any object can be utilized for murder. E.g. hammer, bat, knife, fork, nail gun, car, poison, matches, pills, wire, rock, pen, screwdriver, hairbrush, lamp.(do you wish to ban everything from the utopian dreamworld that you envision?)

The wretched cowards and mentally ill people that commit the mass shootings and headline murders are the ones that will have to face the consequences of their actions. You have more in common with them(than our country's proud gun owners who are true americans of all walks of life)given your pattern of meandering nonsensical palaver.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by liberalism is a disease
a resident of Birdland
on Feb 21, 2014 at 8:30 pm

liberalism is a disease is a registered user.

Derek, excellent post. Thanks for schooling the limp wrested liberals that occupy this website.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Hayward NAACP officials threaten blog posters
By Tim Hunt | 21 comments | 2,241 views

Duck!
By Tom Cushing | 25 comments | 1,230 views

The Giving Season
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 904 views

Thanksgiving Transfer Fever!
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 428 views