skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for CNReporter

( CNReporter )

Comments made by CNReporter

Lori Saldaña Defends Gun Control After Aurora Shooting

It seems that liberals haven't a clue as to how idiotic they look and sound. What must we look like to them?

July 23, 2012 at 10:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A New Supreme Court Ruling May Affect Gun Laws In California

The essential core of the Heller decision which all of the participants seems to have overlooked is that the Heller and McDonald decisions were not about guns. The decisions were about self defense. Alito stated:

"Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right."

The Court found that firearms, handguns in particular, were the most popular and effective means of self defense and as such were protected. The court did not restrict a person to using firearms for the purpose of self defense. The day after the McDonald decision was released the Court overturned a New York conviction for possessing nunchuks which are two sticks tied together at one end with a length of cord. The McDonald decision was the reason the court gave.

As far as the court is concerned there are few types of weapons that could be restricted. Machine guns might be one type but even then the court was not definitive.

What is certain is virtually every gun control law, and every weapons law, in the State of California is presumptively unconstitutional. The burden of proof now rests upon the California government to prove the high level of scrutiny required for restricting a fundamental individual right is justified.

Unfortunately for California taxpayers, it doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that most cities and counties will choose to defy the US Supreme Court and force people to go to Federal court to obtain their rights.

The taxpayers will be poorer and the lawyers will become richer because California politicians chose to stick their heads in the sand rather than to comply with the United States Supreme Court.

July 12, 2010 at 11:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A New Supreme Court Ruling May Affect Gun Laws In California

A couple of the people interviewed here stated that the United States Supreme Court decisions (Heller and McDonald) were "narrow" and either implied or stated outright that the right to a loaded gun existed ONLY in the home. The Court said no such thing. The Court gave an example of the home as being a place where one could have a gun for the purpose of self defense. The Heller decision spent comparatively little time on that question which is odd because that was the question before the bar. Heller had never asked to be able to carry his gun outside of the home.

Carrying a gun outside of the home is where much of the opinion focused upon. The court was uncertain if the right to carry a weapon in public extended to carrying a concealed weapon, except when traveling.

In defining what it meant to "carry" a weapon the court cited Justice Ginsburg in a case involving carrying a gun in public where she said:

“Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates: wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”

In explaining what the 2nd Amendment words regarding what the right of the people to keep and bear arms means, as an individual right, Scalia wrote in Heller "...we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

Has it not occurred to anyone that if the US Supreme Court had intended to limit the right to the home that they would have simply said so and not bother to mention public places where the right did not extend such as "in schools" and government buildings? The decision would have been just a few pages long if they had. Instead, the lions share of the decision went through the long history of bearing arms in public and what restrictions might be placed upon them.

In 1967, the California Legislature passed a law requiring that firearms openly carried in towns and certain areas of counties be unloaded. This will be one of the first laws to go down. The other will be the gun free zones which the court struck down fifteen years before the McDonald decision was released at the Federal level.

Do you think the court would have restricted the "sensitive" prohibited areas to "in" schools and government buildings if they had really meant 1,000 feet around them?

July 12, 2010 at 11:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )