Gun Rights

Court: It's Not a Right When Only the Sheriff's Friends Get To Hold Guns

The case isn't just about guns, but also about what it means for the public to have "rights."

|

SACRAMENTO — A "right" is an "entitlement" that's not dependent on the whims of authorities. If you have a right to "free speech," then you can speak as you choose. The courts let the government enforce a few standards, but it wouldn't be a "right" if government officials got to preview and restrict what you were planning to say.

That's obvious, especially when it involves activities that are widely supported. It's hard to find Americans who don't agree with letting individuals have the widest latitude to speak and protest. But this apparently simple concept gets muddied with rights that are less popular, such as those involving gun ownership.

Last week, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel struck down San Diego County's approach to issuing concealed-carry gun permits, in a case that has statewide and even national implications. Critics of the decision, such as San Diego Police Chief Bill Lansdowne and gun-control activists, argued that allowing more people to carry guns outside their homes increases dangers to the public.

There's much data disputing that notion, but the case isn't about the merits or demerits of public gun ownership. The court's decision focuses on the meaning of this right.

California law allows cities and counties to set their own standards for issuing a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In San Diego County, that power rests with the sheriff. Some counties are permissive, allowing individuals who have no criminal record and meet a few standards to have a permit. But in San Diego County and many urban counties, a person must first prove "good cause," such as facing a direct threat.

The situation in those latter counties is the opposite of a right. It's a privilege. In some counties, friends or campaign donors of sheriffs have been able to obtain permits, while average citizens cannot get them. After being denied a permit and exhausting his appeals through the sheriff's department, Edward Peruta and four others filed suit.

The 9th Circuit judges – relying on two fairly recent and prominent gun-rights rulings in the U.S. Supreme Court (Heller and McDonald) – found that, "The Second Amendment secures the right not only to 'keep' arms but also to 'bear' them … The court already has supplied the word's plain meaning: 'At the time of the founding, as now, to 'bear' meant to 'carry.'"

Then they overturned the lower-court ruling:

The question is not whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County's policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places and some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding 'no.'

This verdict is not the end of the story. County officials will decide whether to seek a review by an en banc panel of the appeals court. Other citizens deprived of a carry permit will need to file lawsuits in their counties. Appeals courts in other parts of the nation have come down on different sides, so the issue probably will go to the U.S. Supreme Court. But it's still a significant ruling.

"Imagine a law saying you need to convince a government official that you have 'good cause' to exercise your right to protest at the Capitol. It's unthinkable," said Bradley Benbrook, a Sacramento attorney who filed a brief in a similar New Jersey case on behalf of members of Congress who want the high court to resolve the split among appeals courts.

"The Bill of Rights exists to constrain government action, and it isn't fair that law-abiding citizens in some parts of the country have to convince their local government that they should be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights," he added.

So the case isn't just about guns, but also about what it means for the public to have "rights." Even Californians who have no interest in carrying a concealed weapon ought to hope the panel's verdict stands.

NEXT: Ukrainian Parliament Votes To Release Jailed Former PM Yulia Tymoshenko

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Critics of the decision, such as San Diego Police Chief Bill Lansdowne and gun-control activists, argued that allowing more people to carry guns outside their homes increases dangers to the public.

    Ooohhhh more Tony porn…….now with the flabby, wrinkly, old bald white statist centerfold!

    Fap away boy……

    1. Gee, too bad there aren’t places in the world where more people are allowed to carry guns so we could see if that were true.

  2. But in San Diego County and many urban counties, a person must first prove “good cause,” such as facing a direct threat.

    Serious question: If a person identifies “a direct threat”, won’t the government deny the request because *it* can deal with said threat?

    1. Of course. Haven’t you worked in or with a bureaucracy before?

    2. It will deny the request unless you have connections. Doesn’t matter what your reason is. You could be a business owner who carries large amounts of cash, and unless you know someone they’ll tell you to screw. That’s what it means to live in the land of the free.

    3. Silly me. “Necessary, but not sufficient.”

    4. If I recall in NYC, in order to actually get a judge to issue you a concealed carry (“unrestricted license” in New York) permit, you either have to be ultra-connected, or you have to be transporting diamonds or something equally incredibly valuable. Seriously. And even in the case of diamond merchants who are afraid of being robbed, if a judge does issue them the license, it still isn’t fully unrestricted and only allows for carrying during transport and not all the time.

      Threats to your person like an ex stalking you? Nah, you can forget it. However, if you are Robert DeNiro you can get a fully unrestricted permit no problem. Because.

      1. *** contemplates changing handle to ‘Robert DeNiro’ ***

      2. If I recall in NYC…

        Guy that works at a body shop near me is from NYC (and still owns a shop up there), and said it’s the most hoops he’s jumped through for anything, ever. “Practically impossible, unless you have half a year to waste” were his exact words, if I remember right.

        1. It’s six months per each of the two permits you will need; one for long guns (only NYC registers and requires permits for long guns, the rest of the state has no regulation or permitting of long guns), and one for handguns (this is state-wide). It requires paying fees of a few hundred dollars, filling out a bunch of shit, and waiting. At the end of it, your handgun permit will be extremely restricted (to and from the range or a gunsmith, and nothing else) unless you are super-connected.

          I just fucking ignored the process, because it’s bullshit, but that was also before 9/11 and before they were randomly searching people on the subway.

          1. …and this is why I’ve declined all interviews with companies whose jobs are in NYC.

            They’re always perplexed when I tell them, “given the regulatory climate in the city, I must decline…” “What? What do you mean?” “I’ll just leave it at that….”

            What I mean is “THEY REGULATE FUCKING EVERYTHING AND I WON’T BE ABLE TO LEGALLY KEEP AND FIRE MY GUNS AND THAT’S OVER THE LINE SO FUCK THEM.”

            Fuck all these locales with the mega restrictions. If the population there likes it, more power to them. Me? No way…

            1. Actually, it’s less power to them.

              1. Ah, yes – of course, you are correct!

            2. Yeah. It’s nice to be able to do target practice in the backyard.

              1. My favorite thing about my house in Ohio. I used the dirt mound (a good–sized hill) from when they dug out our pond as a backstop. It was about 15 ft tall – perfect. A sheriff lived around the corner from us – he had one, too.

                Plus – shooting deer off my back porch FTW…

                1. I thought you were going to tell us that the EPA sued you because your dirt mound destroyed a wetland

            3. If the population there likes it, more power to them.

              Nah, fuck that. “The Population there” can’t like or dislike anything. Some do, some don’t. I suppose if it is unanimous, then more power to them. But it definitely isn’t.

              1. If it’s unanimous, there’s no need to pass a law because no one will be doing it anyway.

                1. That was sort of what I was thinking.

            4. Doesn’t NYC prohibit garbage-disposals?

          2. Bernhard Goetz?

            1. They’re on to me!

          3. You have balls to have walked around NYC packing without a license. That’s an automatic ride to Rikers for a year.

            1. Before 9/11, if you weren’t driving, were a white person (I didn’t know about stop and frisk at the time, but I’m not its target demographic anyway), and didn’t draw the attention of cops for any reason, there was virtually no way you were going to get searched. I lived there seven years and only had a few public encounters with cops, most of them for minor driving citations. I never got accosted on the street by them. There wasn’t that much danger to be carrying. However, after 9/11, it got much more dangerous.

      3. You’ve just given me an idea. I’m going to claim to be Orson Welles from now on. Sure, some people will know I’m lying, since he’s dead and would be quite old now, but I’ll just claim to have dieted.

        Drink no wine before its time.

        1. I can’t find the story, but I seem to remember reading of some guy that did that. He got invited to posh parties and the whole bit.

          I think he was british, which says a lot about people.

          1. That’s the guy who claimed to be Stanley Kubrick, I think.

              1. Wasn’t thinking of him, but he pulled it off so well that he got a John Malkovich movie, Color Me Kubrick.

                1. Yeah, that’s where I heard of the guy, but for some reason it was Welles he was impersonating in my memory.

                  A funny thing about that was that the guy was gay and some of the people he tricked thought they were privy to some huge secret about Kubrick’s sexuality.

            1. “Doctor, I promise you I’ll pay my psychiatric bill, or my name isn’t Napoleon Bonaparte!”

      4. “If I recall in NYC, in order to actually get a judge to issue you a concealed carry (“unrestricted license” in New York) permit, you either have to be ultra-connected, or you have to be transporting diamonds..”

        THE JOOOOOS!

      5. I live in Huntsville, AL…just re-upped my 5 year CC permit. Took 3 minutes at the court house.

        1. During the giant tornado outbreak of April 2011, several TVA trunk lines were wiped out causing power to go out in most of North Alabama. Looters started to filter into town on the second day. On the second or third night a store owner capped a looter with a rifle of some sort. The dude bled to death in the parking lot. Next day the Madison county sheriff basically said keep shooting the looters…looting almost immediately stopped.

          1. Criminals don’t respond to incentives! Everyone knows that!

        2. I live in Yuma, Arizona and I just . . . wait, I don’t need a permit to carry concealed.

    5. A GREAT example of this was done by John Stossel in NY.

      He brought with him print outs of very direct threats to his life, over an extended period of time, as proof that he NEEDED a gun.

      He was denied.

      But anyone want to guess political friends get when they apply?

  3. Butbutbutbut…Dunphy assured me cops are all pro-2A!!!

    1. With the Caveat – for themselves and their buddies.

      1. No, Dunphy explicitly said cops are pro-2A for everybody. Just pointing out that that statement was complete and utter bullshit when he wrote it, and it is complete and utter bullshit now.

        1. He disappeared before I came around. I have no idea how often he lied to you (but evidence is it was quite oft)

          1. Not sure if the guy would know the truth if it hit him in the ‘nads.

            1. “The truth is what I say it is.”

              /average cop

          2. The thing about dunphy was that he was an incredible bullshit artist. Every now and then he would write something that would demonstrate that.

            For example, he claimed to be a cop in Massachusetts (Martha’s Vinyard IIRC), yet once responded to one of my comments in a way that only made sense if he was ignorant of the Boston PD’s rep for corruption and thuggishness.

            He claimed to have only been tangentially involved with the War on (some) Drugs. But a few months later wrote that he had gone undercover to gather evidence on a gang that was earning its income smuggling drugs.

            It became apparent to many of us that the guy was a incredibly self-aggrandizing bullshit artist….

            1. You mean he wasn’t an Olympic body builder or champion surfer? Next you’ll say he wasn’t actually married to Morgan Fairchild.

              1. You forgot rock star, hero fireman, emt, physicist, computer programmer and casanova.

                No kidding, these and more were mentioned.

              2. The phrase that best describes dunphy is:

                “Intolerable braggart.”

                Which completely fits the profile of the types of people who become cops.

                1. Which completely fits the profile of the types of people who become cops.

                  I wonder if he really was a cop.

                  1. I wonder if he really was a cop.

                    Meh, I think he was. I mean, who’d claim to be a cop that wasn’t? It’s like claiming to be with the IRS.

                    1. I mean, who’d claim to be a cop that wasn’t?

                      Dude, there’s a lot of sad guys out there obsessed with being thought of as law enforcement or in the military.

                      Hell, my uncle used to tell people he was a cop because he volunteered to do security for local HS football games.

              3. Remember when he said he used to swing by pharmacies to pick up their sales records?!?

                And got all butthurt when people pointed out if violated HIPPA and the 4th amendment.

                And he responded to a challenge that if he were truly pro-legalization, he become the second active duty cop to join LEAP, and he replied that he had ‘friended’ them on Facebook?

                It was infuriating back then, but with the perspective of time, I see it as one of many compromises he made between his pathetic need for adulation & respect and the fear that people would figure out that he was bullshitting us… my guess is that if he is a cop, he’s one of those lardasses assigned to the motor poll who push paper and dream of glory.

                1. He repeatedly denied being SPD, and nothing he ever said belied that fact (he never talked of doing work within Seattle City limits, for instance), though of course, with a pathological liar, you never know. However, if he really is a cop, there are plenty of rinky-dink little police departments in the towns outside Seattle, like Sea-Tac or Renton. He could easily have been in one of those.

                2. Yeah, I was one of the people who called him on the HIPAA privacy rules thing.

                  He claimed that he wasn’t actually violating the law since he wasn’t the one disclosing the info (correct); however he showed no remorse about the pharmacists who might have lost their jobs for cooperating. All the hallmarks of a psycho; I suspect narcissistic personality disorder.

                  I concluded that everything he said was a fabrication.

            2. Oh, it was clear from the start that dunphy was a pathological liar. The fact that he had to insert himself into every single discussion he saw, and always with a tale that would inevitably include either 1) someone famous, 2) him doing something super awesome, or 3) him being a supercop. So you could be talking about how your roommate used to store his liquor in the back of the toilet and he’d suddenly be telling you about how he roomed one summer in Hawaii with the Beach Boys and they liked to make margaritas out of chicks’ bikini tops, and he got to go along with them and bang Morgan Fairchild.

              It was nuts. I’ve known other pathological liars/exaggerators and he was exactly like them.

              1. SMOOCHES

                sorry ur jealous about my accompllshments. maybe u should get to the gym more often. RNSIOT [must include the made-up, nonsensical acronym/abbreviations].

                hth

              2. bang Morgan Fairchild

                Pics or it didn’t happen

                1. It Didn’t EVER Happen with that guy.

              3. and yet, people engaged him, and his legend lives on.

                1. Frankly, I wish he were still around. He was so ridiculous it upped the entertainment factor around here a few notches. Same cannot be said of those bigoted elitist trolls Tony and Shriek.

                2. A good point, Mainer. Suspect he still lurks here or searches for new mentions of his name. The most hurtful thing you can do to that sort is to completely ignore them.

        2. Actually what Dunphy said was that most COPs (as in constables on patrol) favor gun rights, but chiefs and the like tend not to as they are much more political creatures. Which agrees pretty well with this situation as well as my experience. But that experience includes about 4 cops who I know personally, so that’s not much to go on.

  4. “Imagine a law saying you need to convince a government official that you have ‘good cause’ to exercise your right to protest at the Capitol. It’s unthinkable,” said Bradley Benbrook

    Dammit, Benbrook, don’t give them ideas!

    1. They already had this idea with the requirement of permits and ‘free speech zones’.

      1. Well said. 8-(

    2. But they like protesters at the Capitol. Makes ’em feel powerful.

  5. I’m a little surprised the 9th circuit was able to reach this obvious conclusion.

    1. These were the judges they kept around to write the minority opinions, they just accidentally assigned two to one case.

    2. Someone forgot to pay their “dues” this month.

  6. “It’s hard to find Americans who don’t agree with letting individuals have the widest latitude to speak and protest.”

    Sure, with some minor exceptions like the Obama administration, with its “campaign finance reform” and FCC questionnaires to broadcasters about their news practices, and denouncing a Youtube video at the United Nations.

    1. Hah! I was going to say ” … until a politician finds someone he disagree’s with.”

    2. some minor exceptions

      Pretty much the entire Bush cabinet, the entire Obama cabinet, both major parties, almost all of Congress…

  7. Critics of the decision, such as San Diego Police Chief Bill Lansdowne and gun-control activists, argued that allowing more people to carry guns outside their homes increases dangers to the public.

    Open carry is already legal in CA right?

    Which would lead to the point that stopping concealed carry stops absolutely zero people from carrying guns outside their homes, right?

    So how is this a public threat again?

    Goddamn I’m so fucking sick of morons and 1-step thinking.

    1. The main problem with open carry is that you are guaranteed someone will harrass you over it. Sometimes it’s nice to make a point, but sometimes you just don’t have time for the bother.

      1. Sometimes it’s nice to make a point, but sometimes you just don’t have time for the bother.

        I forget that the South is different from the rest of the world on a daily basis. That said, I’d rather be hassled than dead; furthermore, I’d thoroughly enjoy antagonizing any cop that really wanted to try to hassle me with “FYTW I’m open carrying.”

        1. My argument was for both open and concealed, technically. Though their harrassment is intended to make it a choice between open and disarmed.

      2. The main problem with open carry is that you are guaranteed someone will harrass you over it. Sometimes it’s nice to make a point, but sometimes you just don’t have time for the bother.

        The answer to this is to organize “Open Carry Days” where you get the entire owning population to open carry a couple times a year. You get to make your point and there’d be too many of you for the pigs to fuck with.

        And I’d pay cash money to see the banners wet themselves. Gunz everywhere…the horror!

        1. If the fucking hipsters can organize that disgusting pants-off train ride, surely gun owners can organize an open carry day. I’ll post on NAGR’s Facebook and see what they say.

          1. The local group here in Minneapolis canceled their planned meet up after they got so many threats from the local hipsters.

            1. Since when do gun owners back down to spaghetti-legged hipster douchebags? Goddamn.

              1. I think it was mostly one of those pick your battles type of things.

                You know if they had plowed ahead with their plan and ended up plugging someone it would have been a colossal shit storm.

                On the other hand, they did get a lot of sympathy locally from people who saw the mask slip on the banners.

            2. Well, if you (not you personally PJ) aren’t brave enough to exercise your rights, don’t be surprised when you lose them.

              Pussies!

            3. It would be more effective to have people open carry in rotation rather than in mass rallies. Doesn’t give the banners anything to organize against, and it normalizes it.

              I live in the South where open carry is atypical but reasonably common. Lat time I saw someone OC was in the supermarket. Nobody said anything. No mothers with small children ran away.

      3. also your wearing something that screams “SHOOT ME FIRST!”

        Kinda like people who put glock and browning stickers all over their cars then wondering why they got broken into.

      4. I see people open carrying here in NH fairly often and haven’t seen anyone freak out about it. Of course most of it is hunters during hunting season carrying rifles, but I do see the occasional guy in a store or something (and not always the person working there). Go to one of the cities and it might be different, but in more rural areas, it’s no big thing.

    2. It’s not one-step thinking. It’s a direct desire to prevent people from carrying weapons to defend themselves. The different actors involved have different reasons.

      For the pigs and politicians, the ability to carry at all times, anywhere, is a perk of the job and sets them apart from the proles. They want that distinction. They love that distinction. That distinction proves that they are better than the proles.

      For the BAN BONER crowd, it’s all about projection of their own weaknesses on others, and about CONTROL. They fear themselves with a gun, so they fear others with a gun. Plus they just like to see everyone brought down to the same level of being unable to defend themselves. They like that kind of “equality”.

      1. I disagree epi, I think there are really some people out there that think “Well if we prevent people from carrying concealed, that’ll mean less people carrying guns!”

        It never crosses their mind only law-abiding citizens pay attention to what’s legal and what’s not; and they also never consider that perhaps making concealed carry illegal might just make people carry openly instead.

        1. It never crosses their minds because they earnestly believe if you want to carry, you also want to harm someone. As far as they’re concerned, there is no difference between criminals and law-abiding citizens carrying a gun.

          1. They equate self defense with vigilante justice.

            When someone defends themselves, all they see is someone who is not an agent of the government using a gun. The fact that someone else initiated the violence does not matter.

            1. Which shows the extent to which their knowledge of history is based on movies. Vigilante justice had both good and bad outbreaks. When the local law was corrupt, it was often the only way for citizens to secure their safety. The history of the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance is highly instructive.

              1. In general I’ve found people on the far left to be ignorant of history. At least the parts of history that repeat themselves whenever the far left gets into power.

        2. I suppose there are mouth-breathing, unthinking dopes out there who just go “yeah, make guns illegal and there will be no guns!”, but these people are functionally retarded and aren’t the people leading the charge, they’re just some of the sheep that will support it. The people who are out agitating and pushing for legislation are not these people, they are the people I described.

          1. They all want cake

          2. IDK that I’d call them mouth-breathers, I think it’s more detached from a given reality like Will Smith’s character in any of the MIB movies. You could tell them that, “Everyone should have access to multi-teraflop sodium-cooled nuclear-powered quantum computers. Otherwise, only criminals would use them.”, a gear would spring loose, and they’d ask why would anyone need one of those? Halfway through your explanation, they stop listening and figure out if their gut tells them that generally agree with your ideologies as a human being or not.

            They’re the people that haven’t seen chicken that wasn’t wrapped in plastic or in nugget form and make fun of ‘unsportsmanlike’ hunters for going on a ‘canned hunt’.

    3. Open carry is a great way to get arrested. Not for the open carry of course, but for disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, and a litany of other made-up stuff. Then good luck getting your piece back afterwards.

      1. “Resisting without violence” — ask Bieber.

        1. Is that when they don’t beat you while screaming “Stop Resisting”?

      2. …and, while you’re at it, becoming a human sacrifice on the Altar of Officer Safety.

    4. Nope, California banned open carry in 2011 – 12.

      https://reason.com/blog/2011/10…..n-carry-of

      It’s one of the reasons why this lawsuit had teeth. They cannot open carry, and cannot get a concealed permit, so they cannot exercise their right to bear arms.

        1. Damn technicalities, you’re correct. You can do that in unincorporated areas, but even then it is dependent on if you’re in a prohibited area in the unincorporated area. I’m starting to confuse myself here.

          http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-…..file=26350

          1. No, I was agreeing with you. CA is NOT an open carry state. (hunting in rural areas doesn’t count) If you can’t strap it on and go to town, you ain’t open carry.

            1. I’m a product of California’s public education. I have issues with reading comprehension as you can see.

              I’m in agreement with you.

      1. The fact that they also banned open, unloaded carry didn’t help their case, either.

      2. New Jersey also bans both open carry and concealed carry is on a “may issue” (de facto “no issue”) basis. I wonder if the conflict will get this in front of the Nazgul.

        1. Some are thinking yes, since this creates a circuit split with CA7 and 9 on one side, and CA2, 3, and 4 (I think) on the other. CA9 may still hear this en banc, then again they may not. I think we should find out either way in the next month or two.

        2. I did a bit of checking, and I believe that the CA9 has until about March 6 to say whether or not they are going on hear this en banc. If they don’t then they basically will remand this back down with specific instructions on how to rule. This is more of a formality than a chance for the lower court to re-investigate. They are basically saying, “This is what the facts were, and here is what you are going to say.” To me it seems more like a chance for the lower court to save face in the event of them making a stupid decision.

          This seems like a specific ruling that is binding basically only in San Diego, and other political subdivisions will have to have their specific cases brought before the courts. The good news is that these additional cases don’t generally take *that* long to go through the courts, plus a few cases might be taken up by the Supremes (NRA v. BATF, NRA v. McCraw, Lane v. Holder, Kwong v. DeBlasio, etc.).

          I think a couple of announcements by the SC might come as early as Monday or Tuesday.

  8. Something I have wondered about in the past: if you are deemed “worthy of privilege” due to a specific need, can your permit be revoked if the liege lord deems your need to be no longer legitimate?

    1. Something I have wondered about in the past: if you are deemed “worthy of privilege” due to a specific need, can your permit be revoked if the liege lord deems your need to be no longer legitimate?

      Duh. Ask permission & take orders; there’s no room for silly outdated things like “rights.” What are you, some kind of tea party racist?

    2. Oh, absolutely.

    3. That’s the point.

    4. Ah, I see you are familiar with the concept of “arbitrariness and capriciousness” in the law.

  9. Open carry is already legal in CA right?

    Not anymore.

  10. Maybe this means one day I can take my gun driving to Florida, or California. If the State laws all got knocked down, that would be sweet.

    1. You’d still be breaking federal law by bringing it across state lines.

      1. I can dream that one day it would be legal. Retired cops can do it so why not… oh yeah that retired cop shot the guy throwing popcorn at him.

      2. Uh…what? I can bring any gun I want across state lines. By virtue of federal law. Peaceable Journey Law, to be precise. It needs to be secured and unloaded to and from my destination, but technically* I can do it.

        * Some states like New York will often ignore the law and might try and fuck someone bringing a handgun through even if unloaded and secured, but that’s because of NYS law on handguns and because their prosecutors are assholes.

        1. but that’s because of NYS law on handguns and because their they prosecutors are assholes

          FTFY

        2. What the law says and what cops do are a totally different matter.

          1. We see that here everyday. I think I can get away with an old fashioned unloaded 12 gauge double barrel gun in a bag in the trunk, but if the dog smells anything you know they’ll take it.

          2. We see that here everyday. I think I can get away with an old fashioned unloaded 12 gauge double barrel gun in a bag in the trunk, but if the dog smells anything you know they’ll take it.

            1. I’m seeing double again.

              1. Calm down and uncross your eyes, it should go away.

          3. But you initially claimed that federal law prohibits something that federal law specifically allows.

  11. Some states like New York will often ignore the law

    The first thing the pig who pulled me over in Iowa asked was, “Do you have any guns in the car?”

    1. Just. Say. No.

      Or have secret compartments installed like John Popper.

      1. Dude, I had no idea that Popper was a libertarian. Well, we got Rush and Blues Traveler, progs, check and mate!

        And to get busted for the devil weed in WA gotta sting now.

        1. To get busted for guns, too, in WA has to sting in general. Because WA has pretty damn loose gun laws. But he seems to have gotten in very little trouble at least.

          I saw Blues Traveler at Johns Hopkins in 90 or 91. Great show, small venue, I was right up near the stage.

          1. Does WA have a preemption clause? That is, that the local municipalities and cities cannot enact gun control laws more strict than the state as a whole.

            We have that in PA and it’s great. I can see downtown Pittsburgh from my backyard, but getting a carry license was as easy here as it is in the goatherder counties in the middle of the state. The local prog geniuses can’t chip away at our 2nd rights without being thrown out of court, though they try.

            1. Yes. WA localities cannot enact gun legislation that is more restrictive than state law. Seattle has tried a bunch of times and gets slapped down every time. It’s beautiful.

            2. We have that in PA and it’s great.

              Wait, I thought Philthadelphia had different gun laws than the rest of the state?

              1. I think they’re only exemption is that they are allowed a ban on open carry.

                1. I think Philly tries to have different gun laws and gets slapped down, like Seattle. They also supposedly drag their feet on granting carry permits, although I haven’t tried yet so I can’t verify.

                2. If I remember correctly, that’s part of state law. Open carry is prohibited in “Cities of the First Class” (of which there is only one in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia).

                  1. thx

                    I do remember that, now that you mention it.

                  2. But Philly is anything but a First Class City.

                    1. I’ll take it over the Boston area, but yes, I agree, it is not a First Class city. Only the government can get away with calling it that.

      2. Now I like him even more.

        By the way, I miraculously found a few bottles of Hairy Eyeball at the local liquor store the other night. I opened one and thought it smelled like barleywine, which I’m not a fan of. But it turned out to be delicious. Thanks for the recommendation.

        1. Cool. It’s a great beer. I’m glad I’ve been able to spread the word. Now fucking mail me some because I cannot for the life of me get it in Seattle this year!

          1. Choose your carrier carefully, you can’t send alcohol USPS.

          2. If I ever received a package in the mail from anyone on this blog I’d have to assume it was either a bomb, poison, or some severed, diseased body part from Warty’s lair.

  12. According to 24/7 over there, the Sheriff just loosened the rules to comply with the ruling with the express statement that they’d snap back if they could get it overturned on appeal. My though is he has some serious doubts of victory on appeal if he actually complied before being forced to instead of filing for a stay until appeals were exhauted.

  13. It’s only a right as long as you have the firepower to keep it.

  14. “…. the case isn’t about the merits or demerits of public gun ownership…… the court’s decision focuses on the meaning of this right.”

    Something that the officials protesting this decision have no concern for whatsoever. Like Tony, most of these types despise the notion of rights altogether.

    1. Like Tony, most of these types despise the notion of rights altogether.

      You have the right to buttsex and abortion, why get greedy, citizen?

      1. I don’t want either of those two.

        1. First man in history that doesn’t like anal, right here!

          (I am assuming you’re a dude. Maybe I shouldn’t)

          1. All right, Kristen is gunning for nicole’s tiara! Go Kristen!

          2. Man on womyn buttsex is based upon the inverse and perverse power structure of the patriarchy and shall henceforth be banned.

            1. Yes, ban it. That would only make it even more exciting.

            2. and shall henceforth be banned

              It already is, according the women I’ve slept with.

              1. I think they are doing you a favor.

          3. First man in history that doesn’t like anal, right here!

            He’s not.

          4. He’s the second.

          5. I had a girlfriend who wanted me to fuck her in the ass. I told her to go find a fag. She did.

            1. So she stayed with you? In the closet?

              Let me get your logic straight (hah!). When a female wants a male to fuck her–in the ass–she should find a homosexual male, who likes to fuck men, not women. I’m going to need you to explain the logic of this to me, because I’m not seeing it. Oh wait, you were just reacting to your self-hatred of your own closeted nature. Got it. It’s all clear now!

              1. Uh, no. She broke up with me and became a fag hag.

                1. became a fag hag

                  At least you stayed friends.

                  1. At least you stayed friends.

                    Uh, no. But she did dig out my phone number a few years ago and gave me a call. She kept repeating “You’re a good man. You’re a good man.” I said “Yeah bitch, I’m a married good man. Don’t call this number again.” So far she hasn’t.

                2. She broke up with me and became a fag hag.

                  So you were just part of her pattern.

                  1. So you were just part of her pattern.

                    You wish. You can stop hitting on me now.

                    1. I can’t! There’s just something about you! You know what I mean…

                    2. Did she tell you she was from Iran?

              2. There was no logic. It was a smart-ass response that she took seriously.

                1. She just can’t quit you.

                  1. So….she was a dude? Am I understanding this right?

                    1. Am I understanding this right?

                      To be fair, she passed just fine in dim light. Helluva nice gal and a good cook, too.

                    2. Holy obscure reference, Batman!

                      “SNOTS! Git over here and let Unca Clark rub yer bellah!”

                    3. I held out a thin hope. Thanks, KiKi.

                    4. I would like her number, please

          6. I had one that surprised me the other day. Apparently Certified Public Asskicker is a women.

            I think all gender neutral handles need to have a parenthetical to denote gender. (M), F, T, EIEIO

            1. Why? What difference does it make?

              1. Why? What difference does it make?

                It doesn’t. I was attempting ironical humor.

                1. I missed the intent. It happens with text.

            2. Do we need to ask everyone “a/s/l?” like this is some sort of AOL chatroom?

              1. WTF is a “chatroom”?

                1. It’s a place where lonely old pervs get together and hit on other lonely old pervs who are pretending to be young female pervs.

            3. I think we should have 53 choices. At a minimum.

              1. Hey, if it gets Facebook to buy my company, I’ll give you 53 billion choices.

                1. The terror I could create with 13 billion dollars…

                  1. Worse than a bullet train from one part of the California desert to another part of the California desert?

                    1. “Once we finish the train, we just move the citites to the endpoints of the rails. It’s Perfect!”

                  2. You do just fine with 53 dollars. You don’t need any more.

            4. A “chatroom” (or a “chat room” if you want to be a dick about it) is a place where you meet lonely people who want to have cyber sex, only to later find out they are really talking to a dude. Like these people…

              http://bamcyberblister.tripod.com/logs.htm

              1. THat guy thinks jerking off to pictures, fleshlights, and facefucking are perverted? What Puritan backwater did he grow up in?

                1. THat guy thinks jerking off to pictures, fleshlights, and facefucking are perverted? What Puritan backwater did he grow up in?

                  Missouri.

                2. What the fuck is facefucking?

                  1. What the fuck is facefucking?

                    Pretty much an aggressive BJ. The first chat (“Pervert” Number One) in the link gimme shared was focused on facefucking.

          7. Add me to the list.

          8. I’ll do it if a woman wants me to, but it’s not something I’d seek out.

          9. It’s really only men with small penises that like it.

      2. But why do you need abortion if you have buttsex? Is that where Dumphries come from?

  15. The right to carry a weapon shouldn’t be subservient to the whims of a single elected official, period, which is a major problem with California’s approach. Either everybody gets to carry weapons under a clear set of guidelines administered by an apolitical agency or nobody gets to carry weapons.

    1. They voted nobody, but couldn’t enforce it.

    2. Tell that to Feinstein.

  16. So it took the court this long to figure out individuals have a right to carry and defend themselves? This is why government = insanity. Pretty much,” f:)/ all the people that could have defended themselves and their families and have died as a result of our political douchebaggery.”

    Even if they banned guns. Politicians would still run around with an armed entourage, because they are better than their subjects. New York has a governor, and mayor with this elitist attitude, along with followers whom lick their sheizer holes at every command, and vote to keep them in office. Politicians and their supporters prefer their prey weak and defenseless. This way they can extort as they please.

  17. Even if they banned guns. Politicians would still run around with an armed entourage, because they are better than their subjects. New York has a governor, and mayor with this elitist attitude, along with followers whom lick their sheizer holes at every command, and vote to keep them in office. Politicians and their supporters prefer their prey weak and defenseless. This way they can extort as they please.

    Don’t (ever!) forget, Peter King wanted to make Congressmen and Senators “gun free zones” by making it illegal for any smelly peasant to be in possession of a weapon within some specified radius (500′ I think).

    One more in the very long list of reasons to hope that sleazy tyrant gets run over by a garbage truck.

    1. How do these people become congressmen? They’re not smart, they’re not ethical, they’re not even famous or attractive.

      Has anyone here ever tried running for political office?

      1. The main reason why libertarians will never rule the world is that people who value liberty generally do not seek power over others.

        1. The main reason why libertarians will never rule the world is that people who value liberty generally do not seek power over others.

          Agreed. But I’m almost to the point where I’d consider it, JUST to attempt to dismantle governments ability to hold powers over others.

          If it didn’t mean leaving Montana for DC, I just might try.

  18. http://www.wltx.com/story/loca…..4/1695936/

    South Carolina’s constitutional carry bill was shot down in committee today by Sen. Larry Martin (R-Pickens) who said “You can carry a weapon openly if this bill is adopted and I’m offended by that.”

    1. Look, how many times do we have to explain that the basis of civil society is banning things that other people find offensive, particularly important people like Sen. Larry Martin, who is himself the living embodiment of the sentient vox populi?

      Sometimes I get tired of explaining obvious shit to you libertardians.

      1. *State Sen. Larry Martin

        http://votesmart.org/candidate…..rry-martin – this guy just looks like the sort of giant shitweasel who’d be a SC senator.

      2. Hey, barneY franK, you’re offensive, you’re banned.

    2. I find politicians openly speaking in public offensive. So?

  19. I don’t agree with the definition that ‘A “right” is an “entitlement” that’s not dependent on the whims of authorities.’ Neither is a subset of the other.

    ‘shall not be infringed’ should be plain enough that it never be argued in court or anywhere else.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.