More in the local rag

[Subdeacon Joe]

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20140218/opinion/140219600

 

PD Editorial: Court declares open season on public safety

 

Speaking to a gun rights group last spring, Sonoma County Sheriff Steve Freitas asked his audience to take a moment and think about their friends, family members and acquaintances.

“Should they all have a loaded gun all the time?” he asked. “I have some family members who shouldn't.”

Do you?

California law accounts for those who shouldn't be packing at all times by authorizing sheriffs and police chiefs to determine who is allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public. To qualify for a permit, the law says applicants must be “of good moral character,” must have “completed a course of training” and must have “good cause.”

Those standards hardly qualify as onerous. But they were too much for a federal appeals panel, which shot down California's law in a ruling last week that identified Second Amendment rights broader than any previously recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote for a 2-1 majority that, if it's upheld, would allow millions of people to carry guns out of a generalized concern for their personal safety.

Fear is not “good cause,” and frightened people with deadly weapons won't enhance anyone's safety.

Fortunately, this ruling isn't the last word.

The decision is on hold pending a possible review by a larger panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case eventually could be appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2008 that people have a constitutional right to keep firearms at home for self-defense.

O'Scannlain concluded that that right “could not rationally be limited to the home.” A federal appeals court reached a similar conclusion last year in overturning Illinois' blanket ban on concealed weapons in public. But other federal courts upheld laws similar to California's in New York, New Jersey and Maryland.

And in its own ruling on firearms and self-defense, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, endorsed limits on firearms “in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

With mass shootings in shopping malls, movie theaters, workplaces and parking lots, there's a strong case to be made that the list of “sensitive places” is far longer than schools and government buildings.

The challenge in California, which originated in San Diego County, may have as much as to do with the state's new open-carry laws as much as its long-standing rules for concealed weapons.

When it became popular in some circles to gather in public with unloaded rifles and pistols (it already was illegal to carry loaded guns), many people felt intimidated and state legislators responded by making the practice illegal. Good.

This isn't the old West, or even Hollywood's version of it, and allowing more people to carry guns will only result in more violence and more tragedy.

Feel free to go to the site and leave comments.

[Eyesa Horg]

"And in its own ruling on firearms and self-defense, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, endorsed limits on firearms “in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

With mass shootings in shopping malls, movie theaters, workplaces and parking lots, there's a strong case to be made that the list of “sensitive places” is far longer than schools and government buildings."

All the more reason for me to want to be armed in public, even if the nut case gets me--- at least I tried to defend myself, it will be too late by the time the law arrives.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Hopefully 'moderation' will allow my comment. Under '1gunner'

 

GG ~

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

 

"And in its own ruling on firearms and self-defense, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, endorsed limits on firearms “in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

With mass shootings in shopping malls, movie theaters, workplaces and parking lots, there's a strong case to be made that the list of “sensitive places” is far longer than schools and government buildings."

 

 

I hope the buffoon that the above, has zero gun violence in his county.

The above only indicates that he has bought hook line and sinker the idiocy of gun-free zones.

Yet as a LEO he should already know that when your life depends on seconds, cops are minutes away.

If they ever show up......... Last year at a chapter meeting of our gun club, a 911 tape was played where there was no law enforcement available at all.

The town had gone to LEO 9-5 or some such nonsense. And the state wasn't available.

As the list of places on his list grows, it should be more and more obvious that it is impossible for gun-free zones and laws to replace practical defense of citizens.

[Subdeacon Joe]

Hopefully 'moderation' will allow my comment. Under '1gunner'

 

GG ~

Yep, it posted. Good post, too. Thank you.