Does this invalidate California’s open carry prohibition?
-
-
-
It doesn’t invalidate anything. It’s the 9th circuit and will almost assuredly go En Banc to the entire circuit and will be overturned. The small panel that took this up are way to the right of the majority in the 9th and this flies in the face of Perulta.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Just in case the US wasn’t already Wild Westy enough.
#TooStupidForNiceThings -
Are you really that stupid? Texas has open carry. you see people with holsters loading groceries in their car, kids riding piggyback in Lowes... its THE SAME AS ANY OTHER DAY. CRIMINALS don't take over Trader Joe's or Lubys. They dont walk around practicing their quick draw! smh!
-
That might be, dear heart, because both Luby's and Trader Joes prohibit open carry under Texas law.https://gunfreebusinesses.com
-
Not in the parking lot they don't. And considering the mass murder that happened at a Luby's in TX , the tragedy inspired the daughter survivor to get our CCW law passed they should change that policy. Glad I never go to either place that makes us fish in a barrel.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As long as “a well regulated militia” is interpreted as an individual right to bear arms...then this ruling makes sense.
-
It doesn't say "the right of the militia" in
#2A . It says "the right of the people". Same phrase as in 1st & 4th amendments. "Person" in the 5th. "The people" in 9th and 10th. All meaning individuals, and referring to individual rights/powers. -
All interpreted as individual. But all those “the people” aren’t interpreted the same way either. Some mean citizen, others apply to non citizens as well. It’s about interpretation. Nonetheless, what is the point of the militia clause? We just ignore it? It has no meaning?
-
The point is the current interpretation gives individuals a right to bear arms. I don’t see how your comment changes anything about what I said initially.
-
Let me put it differently then. The Constitution and Bill of Rights protects inherent rights. It does not create them.
-
Lol, that’s sweet. It’s also delusional. Ignoring literally all of the history of the supreme court. Like, the fact that before Heller and McDonald you did not(!) have an individual right to bear arms. Bc the court hadn’t interpreted it to mean that until that point.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I love the ruling. Liberal States will no longer be able to deny American Citizens their right to bear arms. A step forward in the protection of our Liberties.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And again with the Heller decision. Heller+Citizen's United have done more damage to our country in my lifetime than any other two court decisions. Without question. It's so maddening to know that Pebbles' generation will have to fight their whole lives to reverse these mistakes.
-
Good luck Pebbles, you'll need it. And
#GetTraining &#AlwaysCarry -
And don't forget
#alwaysbeparanoid and#nevertrustanyoneinpublic and of course#makingamericagreatagainbygoingbacktothe1800s -
What else do 21st century sheep say? Wait. Don't answer that. Continue to think angry women and teenagers in pink hats know what they're talking about.pic.twitter.com/C8FiAT0e9Z
-
-
I know who Jeff Cooper was. I know who Abraham Lincoln was. I think you're misquoting Abe.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.