Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal.
I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon.
It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.
Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
The 2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
That's a strange way to parse this poorly punctuated sentence. Personally, when I read this, the most coherent correction would be to remove the first and last commas. I believe this was also the interpretation by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision. Everything before the middle comma was interpreted as an "independent clause" providing explanation for the second half of the sentence.
It would be like if a legislature voted this sentence into law.
Face masks, being protective from viruses, the right of businesses to deny service, shall not be infringed.
Would anyone argue that this means that face masks shall not be infringed? I doubt it.
The problem with how the 2nd Amendment was written (and with my example) is that you can't definitely tell whether the first part (about militias or masks) is supposed to be an example of why the second part exists or is supposed to be a limiting phrase.
For my example, more clear formulations (depending on the intent) would be either:
Face masks protect against viruses, this is one example that explains why we prohibit the government from infringing on the right of a business to deny service.
or
Face masks protect against viruses, thus, in this specific context, businesses shall be allowed to deny service to patrons who refuse to wear a mask.
To me, the critical word in the 2nd Amendment is "right." Everywhere else in the Constitution, we interpret "right" and "freedom" broadly in favor of the citizen. If the framers (and states ratifying the amendment) wanted this to be more restrictive, they could have phrased it without using the word "right" and certainly without the flowery "the right of the people." If they wanted to say "Congress shall pass no law interfering with the rights of States to govern their militia" they could have just said that.
Perhaps because there were a lot of lawyers present they wanted to ensure full attorney employment for the entire history of the new republic.
....
BTW the Heller decision is consider bad law except for the people who wish for you not to defend yourself.
... or commit mass murder of school kids. One can only wonder why one would buy an assault weapon (there's a reason why they're called "assault" weapons!) with a 30 or 100 round clip for self defense. It's verges on prima facia proof that they're too crazy to own a gun.
The AR-15 style rifles people can buy are not really "assault" weapons. AR-15's automatically come with 30 round mags unless you live in a select few states. Since it's a standard mag size, I really don't see why you wouldn't use it for self or home defense. Now a 100 round drum mag, that's pretty stupid, especially when you consider the weight.
The AR-15 style rifles people can buy are not really "assault" weapons. AR-15's automatically come with 30 round mags unless you live in a select few states. Since it's a standard mag size, I really don't see why you wouldn't use it for self or home defense. Now a 100 round drum mag, that's pretty stupid, especially when you consider the weight.
And the term “Assault Rifle” is only used by the ignorant or stupid and those who want people to remain ignorant or stupid.
That's a popular myth among gunsters. But Hitler's Panzers and Luftwaffe rolled over multiple well trained and well equipped armies of many hundreds of thousands. A couple guys with some guns would not have slowed them down much less stopped them.
"Gunsters", never have I heard of this word and would include it with things like the use of "assault weapons". by the ill-informed.
The AR-15 style rifles people can buy are not really "assault" weapons. AR-15's automatically come with 30 round mags unless you live in a select few states. Since it's a standard mag size, I really don't see why you wouldn't use it for self or home defense. Now a 100 round drum mag, that's pretty stupid, especially when you consider the weight.
Isn’t the designation largely based on the type of cartridge used? “Assault” weapons usually use an intermediate range cartridge vs military battle machine guns which use full range cartridges. Whereas old style Tommy submachine guns use regular handgun cartridges.
“ Jensen reportedly managed to get Moyer to promise that Apple would donate 200 iPads, worth about $70,000, to the Sheriff's Office. Undersheriff sung also extracted from Chadha, the insurance broker, a "promise of $6,000 worth of luxury box seat tickets to a San Jose Sharks hockey game."
In California, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm without a CCW license that can cost between $200 and $400. So these 2 CLOWNS (Moyer & Chadha) risked their careers and wanted to avoid paying between $200 & $400 to legitimately get their CCW legally? They should be imprisioned for pure greed and stupidity.
What a pair of Morons!
You must have missed the part where the Sheriff's office asked for the bribes. Also the average non-celebrity person requesting a CCW is turned down in nearly every case even people working in the middle of the night in a bad part of town will have their request for a CCW denied, because selfdefense is not a good enough reason to get a CCW in "may-issue" states. In nearly every case the odds of actually getting a CCW in California is as rare as winning the lottery. Having a process to get a CCW clears them from violating the constitution even though a person who meets "common-sense" need will often if not in every case be denied.
Here is what Wikipedia said about "May-Issue" states:
"A may-issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police), with a few states consolidating this discretionary power under state-level law enforcement. Moreover, issuing authorities in most may-issue jurisdictions are not required to provide a substantive reason for the denial of a concealed carry permit. Some may-issue jurisdictions may provide administrative and legal avenues for an applicant to appeal a permit denial, while others do not.
The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met, or that the permit applicant must have "good cause" (or similar) to carry a concealed weapon. In most such situations, self-defense in and of itself often does not satisfy the "good cause" requirement, and issuing authorities in some may-issue jurisdictions have been known to arbitrarily deny applications for CCW permits without providing the applicant with any substantive reason for the denial. Some may-issue jurisdictions require a permit-holder to provide justification for continued need for a concealed carry permit upon renewal, and may deny the renewal of an expiring permit without sufficient showing of "good cause." Some of these jurisdictions may revoke a permit after it has been issued when the issuing authority in its discretion has determined that the "good cause" used in approving the permit application no longer exists. Other may-issue jurisdictions allow for automatic renewal of the permit, as long as the permit-holder completes any required firearms safety training and files the renewal application before the permit expires. Some may-issue jurisdictions give issuing authorities discretion in granting concealed carry permits based on an applicant's suitability (e.g., moral character) by requiring the applicant to submit evidence (resume/curriculum vitae, letters of reference, credit history, etc.) showing the applicant is of suitable character to be issued a permit."
Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???
I'd say it is highly debatable wether these fools are anywhere near 'the best of them'. It would have been cheaper and safer unless there is something more to this story. The obvious thing would just to be not to carry at all. This need to carry deadly weapons around would be totally juvenile had it not been so incredibly dangerous.
Have you looked up the amount of violent crime there is in California even with their strict weapon laws? "Cheaper and safer" You don't realize just because someone paid $400 to get a permit in California doesn't mean you are going to get one especially when the person who makes that decision is demanding bribes. "juvenile"? If someone wants your money or you car or your phone or your life they aren't normally going to take it while the police is around. If America was a safe place you might have a point, but it's not. Just look up the number of people beat to death with a blunt object in California it's more than the total number of murders in the UK.
Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???
"...especially in a state like California with decades of racist gun control laws (look up the Mulford Act)..."
The Mulford act never specified race. The Mulford act banned open carry in California and the law is still in effect. I would love to qoute from the actual law, but google doesn't take me to the website were acts should be easily available for citizens to review.
Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal.
I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon.
It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.
Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
The 2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
That's a strange way to parse this poorly punctuated sentence. Personally, when I read this, the most coherent correction would be to remove the first and last commas. I believe this was also the interpretation by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision. Everything before the middle comma was interpreted as an "independent clause" providing explanation for the second half of the sentence.
It would be like if a legislature voted this sentence into law.
Face masks, being protective from viruses, the right of businesses to deny service, shall not be infringed.
Would anyone argue that this means that face masks shall not be infringed? I doubt it.
The problem with how the 2nd Amendment was written (and with my example) is that you can't definitely tell whether the first part (about militias or masks) is supposed to be an example of why the second part exists or is supposed to be a limiting phrase.
For my example, more clear formulations (depending on the intent) would be either:
Face masks protect against viruses, this is one example that explains why we prohibit the government from infringing on the right of a business to deny service.
or
Face masks protect against viruses, thus, in this specific context, businesses shall be allowed to deny service to patrons who refuse to wear a mask.
To me, the critical word in the 2nd Amendment is "right." Everywhere else in the Constitution, we interpret "right" and "freedom" broadly in favor of the citizen. If the framers (and states ratifying the amendment) wanted this to be more restrictive, they could have phrased it without using the word "right" and certainly without the flowery "the right of the people." If they wanted to say "Congress shall pass no law interfering with the rights of States to govern their militia" they could have just said that.
Perhaps because there were a lot of lawyers present they wanted to ensure full attorney employment for the entire history of the new republic.
....
BTW the Heller decision is consider bad law except for the people who wish for you not to defend yourself.
... or commit mass murder of school kids. One can only wonder why one would buy an assault weapon (there's a reason why they're called "assault" weapons!) with a 30 or 100 round clip for self defense. It's verges on prima facia proof that they're too crazy to own a gun.
The AR-15 style rifles people can buy are not really "assault" weapons. AR-15's automatically come with 30 round mags unless you live in a select few states. Since it's a standard mag size, I really don't see why you wouldn't use it for self or home defense. Now a 100 round drum mag, that's pretty stupid, especially when you consider the weight.
Nice rationalization! But, if they aren't assault weapons with rapid firing, tumbling bullets meant to rip out the insides of as many people as possible as quickly as possible, why do they call them assault weapons?
Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal.
I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon.
It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.
Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
The 2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
That's a strange way to parse this poorly punctuated sentence. Personally, when I read this, the most coherent correction would be to remove the first and last commas. I believe this was also the interpretation by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision. Everything before the middle comma was interpreted as an "independent clause" providing explanation for the second half of the sentence.
It would be like if a legislature voted this sentence into law.
Face masks, being protective from viruses, the right of businesses to deny service, shall not be infringed.
Would anyone argue that this means that face masks shall not be infringed? I doubt it.
The problem with how the 2nd Amendment was written (and with my example) is that you can't definitely tell whether the first part (about militias or masks) is supposed to be an example of why the second part exists or is supposed to be a limiting phrase.
For my example, more clear formulations (depending on the intent) would be either:
Face masks protect against viruses, this is one example that explains why we prohibit the government from infringing on the right of a business to deny service.
or
Face masks protect against viruses, thus, in this specific context, businesses shall be allowed to deny service to patrons who refuse to wear a mask.
To me, the critical word in the 2nd Amendment is "right." Everywhere else in the Constitution, we interpret "right" and "freedom" broadly in favor of the citizen. If the framers (and states ratifying the amendment) wanted this to be more restrictive, they could have phrased it without using the word "right" and certainly without the flowery "the right of the people." If they wanted to say "Congress shall pass no law interfering with the rights of States to govern their militia" they could have just said that.
Perhaps because there were a lot of lawyers present they wanted to ensure full attorney employment for the entire history of the new republic.
....
BTW the Heller decision is consider bad law except for the people who wish for you not to defend yourself.
... or commit mass murder of school kids. One can only wonder why one would buy an assault weapon (there's a reason why they're called "assault" weapons!) with a 30 or 100 round clip for self defense. It's verges on prima facia proof that they're too crazy to own a gun.
The AR-15 style rifles people can buy are not really "assault" weapons. AR-15's automatically come with 30 round mags unless you live in a select few states. Since it's a standard mag size, I really don't see why you wouldn't use it for self or home defense. Now a 100 round drum mag, that's pretty stupid, especially when you consider the weight.
Nice rationalization! But, if they aren't assault weapons with rapid firing, tumbling bullets meant to rip out the insides of as many people as possible as quickly as possible, why do they call them assault weapons?
Who's calling them assault weapons outside of some media articles and certain social comments? No gun owner I know calls them that, even those who own just a simple handgun. You might be making the mistake of assuming the "AR" stands for "Assault Rifle". It does not.
To be clear I'm no fan of "everyone should own a gun". They should not, and I have no problem with exercising some control over responsible ownership. I'm also not in favor of the slippery slope banning of personal firearms based on somewhat arbitrary categorization such as what you're doing.
The AR-15 style rifles people can buy are not really "assault" weapons. AR-15's automatically come with 30 round mags unless you live in a select few states. Since it's a standard mag size, I really don't see why you wouldn't use it for self or home defense. Now a 100 round drum mag, that's pretty stupid, especially when you consider the weight.
Isn’t the designation largely based on the type of cartridge used? “Assault” weapons usually use an intermediate range cartridge vs military battle machine guns which use full range cartridges. Whereas old style Tommy submachine guns use regular handgun cartridges.
You suggest smaller AR-15 bullets are less lethal than larger ones?
While that was once a popular assumption, the truth is quite the opposite.
When the military cousin of the AR-15 was used to replace the M-1 in Vietnam the concern was that it's smaller bullet would lack the stopping and killing power of the larger bullet of the M-1. But, it was explained that, even though smaller, the AR-15 style bullet had increased killing and disabling capacity because, when it enters the human body it starts to tumble and rips the insides apart. It is not known for its stopping power but for its killing and disabling power.
One front line surgeon compared an AR-15 shell to that of a 9mm: He said the AR-15 wound looked like "a grenade had gone off in there" while the wound from the 9mm looks like a "bad knife cut".
The AR-15 has only a single purpose: to kill and seriously maim as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Which has made it the favored weapon of mass murderers and wanna be mass murderers.
Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???
I'd say it is highly debatable wether these fools are anywhere near 'the best of them'. It would have been cheaper and safer unless there is something more to this story. The obvious thing would just to be not to carry at all. This need to carry deadly weapons around would be totally juvenile had it not been so incredibly dangerous.
Have you looked up the amount of violent crime there is in California even with their strict weapon laws? "Cheaper and safer" You don't realize just because someone paid $400 to get a permit in California doesn't mean you are going to get one especially when the person who makes that decision is demanding bribes. "juvenile"? If someone wants your money or you car or your phone or your life they aren't normally going to take it while the police is around. If America was a safe place you might have a point, but it's not. Just look up the number of people beat to death with a blunt object in California it's more than the total number of murders in the UK.
Have you looked up the before and after death by gun rate in Australia after they instituted strict gun control laws?
Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???
I'd say it is highly debatable wether these fools are anywhere near 'the best of them'. It would have been cheaper and safer unless there is something more to this story. The obvious thing would just to be not to carry at all. This need to carry deadly weapons around would be totally juvenile had it not been so incredibly dangerous.
Have you looked up the amount of violent crime there is in California even with their strict weapon laws? "Cheaper and safer" You don't realize just because someone paid $400 to get a permit in California doesn't mean you are going to get one especially when the person who makes that decision is demanding bribes. "juvenile"? If someone wants your money or you car or your phone or your life they aren't normally going to take it while the police is around. If America was a safe place you might have a point, but it's not. Just look up the number of people beat to death with a blunt object in California it's more than the total number of murders in the UK.
Have you looked up the before and after death by gun rate in Australia after they instituted strict gun control laws?
George, you have to move past heavily biased (propaganda as you put it) sources when researching. Those thumbnail articles in big media are too often intended to serve specific audiences, short on facts and heavy on slant. It takes reading multiple sources on both sides of an issue to reveal the entire story.
“ Jensen reportedly managed to get Moyer to promise that Apple would donate 200 iPads, worth about $70,000, to the Sheriff's Office. Undersheriff sung also extracted from Chadha, the insurance broker, a "promise of $6,000 worth of luxury box seat tickets to a San Jose Sharks hockey game."
In California, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm without a CCW license that can cost between $200 and $400.
So these 2 CLOWNS (Moyer & Chadha) risked their careers and wanted to avoid paying between $200 & $400 to legitimately get their CCW legally? They should be imprisioned for pure greed and stupidity.
What a pair of Morons!
The issue isn't that they wanted to avoid the $200-$400 (it's actually $400+, when I lived in California I had one). The issue is that even if you pay the money, there is almost no chance you'll get one, since the legislature left it up to the Sheriff and Chief of Police to decide who does or doesn't get one. Nearly every other state is "shall issue"...meaning, if you are a law-abiding citizen, the government can't deny you a CCW.
California is "may issue", which effectively means no one gets one.
People who vote for progressives shouldn’t be surprised when progressive policies are enacted.
Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal.
I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon.
It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.
Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
The 2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???
I'd say it is highly debatable wether these fools are anywhere near 'the best of them'. It would have been cheaper and safer unless there is something more to this story. The obvious thing would just to be not to carry at all. This need to carry deadly weapons around would be totally juvenile had it not been so incredibly dangerous.
Have you looked up the amount of violent crime there is in California even with their strict weapon laws? "Cheaper and safer" You don't realize just because someone paid $400 to get a permit in California doesn't mean you are going to get one especially when the person who makes that decision is demanding bribes. "juvenile"? If someone wants your money or you car or your phone or your life they aren't normally going to take it while the police is around. If America was a safe place you might have a point, but it's not. Just look up the number of people beat to death with a blunt object in California it's more than the total number of murders in the UK.
Have you looked up the before and after death by gun rate in Australia after they instituted strict gun control laws?
George, you have to move past heavily biased (propaganda as you put it) sources when researching. Those thumbnail articles in big media are too often intended to serve specific audiences, short on facts and heavy on slant. It takes reading multiple sources on both sides of an issue to reveal the entire story.
You might want to follow your own advice. Powered by the now nearly defunct NRA (they kinda faded after they lost their Russian funding) your so called "gun rights" groups are dominated and defined by propaganda that increasingly is moving on to promote internal, home grown terrorists.
Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal.
I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon.
It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.
Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
The 2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
The National Guard is not a "militia", by any definition. A militia is a group of private citizens that will offer their service to protect, what ever needs protecting, in a minute notice, during a time of an emergency. These private citizens are not paid for their service by the government and are not required to join any government military arm forces or attend any form of required government military training. At the time the Constitution was written, there was no such organization that might even resemble the National Guard. The "militia" in the Constitution was more in reference to the minutemen.
@davidw You would have done well to do a bit more research before declaring "The National Guard is not a "militia", by any definition", because they absolutely are according to Constitutional law.
Militia Clause 16: The Congress shall have Power... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Notice I put "militia" in quotes. That's to signify "militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment, though it was not clear. Not as used in the "Militia Clause" in Article One of the Constitution or anywhere else.
Ask yourself this, if the "militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment includes government organizations like the US Army, Marines, Navy and later to include Air Force and National Guards, why would the framers of the Constitution need to state that the government shall not infringe upon the rights of the "people" that are members of such organizations to keep and bear arms, when the government issues them the arms? It wouldn't make sense to have the government issue arms to members of those "militia" and then not allow then to keep and bear them, thus we need a Constitutional amendment that state that the government can not infringe upon any rights those members to keep and bear arms. If there was an issue with these members keeping and bearing arms, then the government could just not issue them any arms.
Or are we to construe that if it weren't for the 2nd Amendment, the government could force the members of its "militia" to use harsh languages to ward off any enemy because the government would not have to arm the people in their own militias.
The most logical definition of 'militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment refers to people (like in we the people .....) rights to keep and bear arms, in order to have a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, when called upon. Like back in the days of the Revolutionary War, when the Continental Army (as it was known back then as there was no United States yet) fought along side militia consisting of private citizens, that in most cases had to supply their own arms in battle. This is the "militia" that the 2nd Amendment most likely reference. The framers saw the importance of the private citizens rights to keeping and bearing arms and thought best not for the government to infringe upon that right.
Notice that the 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights do not grant any rights to the "people". The Bill of Rights serve to limit the power of our government. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the "people" right to keep and bear arms, that right is already recognized. The 2nd Amendment states that the government shall not infringe upon the "people" right to keep and bear arms. Just like how the 1st Amendment limits the power of government to infringe upon the peoples recognized rights to freedom of religion and speech.
Now one might argue that we no longer need private citizens militia to protect the security of a free State. We have government arm forces, both Federal and State to do that. So the 2nd is now obsolete. But remember back to the Revolutionary War, the militia that fought along side the Continental Army were fighting against the tyranny of their own government, the British. The British did not recognize the U.S. of America until after we won the war. This did not escape the framers of the Constitution, in that the security of a free State might also mean that the "people" might have to protect their free State, when our own government is no longer ...... of the people, by the people and for the people. They saw that having well armed people was the check and balance needed to keep the government in check. They did not foresee that their newly form government under the Constitution of the United States of America was infallible. If they did, they would not had needed to write in the Bill of Rights.
“ Jensen reportedly managed to get Moyer to promise that Apple would donate 200 iPads, worth about $70,000, to the Sheriff's Office. Undersheriff sung also extracted from Chadha, the insurance broker, a "promise of $6,000 worth of luxury box seat tickets to a San Jose Sharks hockey game."
In California, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm without a CCW license that can cost between $200 and $400.
So these 2 CLOWNS (Moyer & Chadha) risked their careers and wanted to avoid paying between $200 & $400 to legitimately get their CCW legally? They should be imprisioned for pure greed and stupidity.
What a pair of Morons!
The issue isn't that they wanted to avoid the $200-$400 (it's actually $400+, when I lived in California I had one). The issue is that even if you pay the money, there is almost no chance you'll get one, since the legislature left it up to the Sheriff and Chief of Police to decide who does or doesn't get one. Nearly every other state is "shall issue"...meaning, if you are a law-abiding citizen, the government can't deny you a CCW.
California is "may issue", which effectively means no one gets one.
Pretty much most of the rest of the world has a “should never issue” policy, which is the only one that makes sense.
Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal.
I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon.
It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.
Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
The 2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
The National Guard is not a "militia", by any definition. A militia is a group of private citizens that will offer their service to protect, what ever needs protecting, in a minute notice, during a time of an emergency. These private citizens are not paid for their service by the government and are not required to join any government military arm forces or attend any form of required government military training. At the time the Constitution was written, there was no such organization that might even resemble the National Guard. The "militia" in the Constitution was more in reference to the minutemen.
@davidw You would have done well to do a bit more research before declaring "The National Guard is not a "militia", by any definition", because they absolutely are according to Constitutional law.
Militia Clause 16: The Congress shall have Power... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Notice I put "militia" in quotes. That's to signify "militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment, though it was not clear. Not as used in the "Militia Clause" in Article One of the Constitution or anywhere else.
Ask yourself this, if the "militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment includes government organizations like the US Army, Marines, Navy and later to include Air Force and National Guards, why would the framers of the Constitution need to state that the government shall not infringe upon the rights of the "people" that are members of such organizations to keep and bear arms, when the government issues them the arms? It wouldn't make sense to have the government issue arms to members of those "militia" and then not allow then to keep and bear them, thus we need a Constitutional amendment that state that the government can not infringe upon any rights those members to keep and bear arms. If there was an issue with these members keeping and bearing arms, then the government could just not issue them any arms.
Or are we to construe that if it weren't for the 2nd Amendment, the government could force the members of its "militia" to use harsh languages to ward off any enemy because the government would not have to arm the people in their own militias.
The most logical definition of 'militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment refers to people (like in we the people .....) rights to keep and bear arms, in order to have a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, when called upon. Like back in the days of the Revolutionary War, when the Continental Army (as it was known back then as there was no United States yet) fought along side militia consisting of private citizens, that in most cases had to supply their own arms in battle. This is the "militia" that the 2nd Amendment most likely reference. The framers saw the importance of the private citizens rights to keeping and bearing arms and thought best not for the government to infringe upon that right.
Notice that the 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights do not grant any rights to the "people". The Bill of Rights serve to limit the power of our government. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the "people" right to keep and bear arms, that right is already recognized. The 2nd Amendment states that the government shall not infringe upon the "people" right to keep and bear arms. Just like how the 1st Amendment limits the power of government to infringe upon the peoples recognized rights to freedom of religion and speech.
Now one might argue that we no longer need private citizens militia to protect the security of a free State. We have government arm forces, both Federal and State to do that. So the 2nd is now obsolete. But remember back to the Revolutionary War, the militia that fought along side the Continental Army were fighting against the tyranny of their own government, the British. The British did not recognize the U.S. of America until after we won the war. This did not escape the framers of the Constitution, in that the security of a free State might also mean that the "people" might have to protect their free State, when our own government is no longer ...... of the people, by the people and for the people. They saw that having well armed people was the check and balance needed to keep the government in check. They did not foresee that their newly form government under the Constitution of the United States of America was infallible. If they did, they would not had needed to write in the Bill of Rights.
Good points....
But I think the nod to "militias" goes back to pre-revolutionary days when colonists living out in the wilderness of Pennsylvania had to fight to keep their lives and property but the King's forces (led by the Penns who essentially owned the state) were unwilling to spend the money to protect them. So, those colonists had to form their own forces/militias to protect themselves - colonists would contribute funds to establish and equip a militia to address particular problems. (And the militias you mention who fought in the revolution stemmed from those groups and practices).
But that was one of the prime motivations for the revolution: The King and English parliament viewed the colonies as property with which to enrich themselves by spending as little as possible while taking as much as possible -- while the colonists viewed the country as their home and wanted a stable, safe place to live. So, often the colonists found it necessary to form militias for their own protection from mostly French sponsered Indian uprisings since the English government didn't much care if they lived or died -- they were only concerned about taking profit from their colonies.
This even extended to the cities where one of the things Ben Franklin did was to organize citizen groups for the betterment of those living in Philadelphia: Things as varied as fire departments and libraries (I forget if police was one of those citizen groups).
But, as you allude to, the idea of those militias has passed. The concept of citizen groups making their own laws and enforcing them died with the old west vigilantes and southern lynch mobs. For those who think otherwise, it is likely to end badly.
Is the Apple Chief Security Officer Thomas Moyer still employed at Apple?
Why wouldn't he be? Did he steal something from Apple? Jerk off in his office? Not show up for work? There's nothing here to suggest he committed any misconduct while in the scope of his employment.
He attempted to bribe a public official. I can't think of a single company that would allow someone to stay on their roster of employees after that.
Comments
But, if they aren't assault weapons with rapid firing, tumbling bullets meant to rip out the insides of as many people as possible as quickly as possible, why do they call them assault weapons?
To be clear I'm no fan of "everyone should own a gun". They should not, and I have no problem with exercising some control over responsible ownership. I'm also not in favor of the slippery slope banning of personal firearms based on somewhat arbitrary categorization such as what you're doing.
Have you looked up the before and after death by gun rate in Australia after they instituted strict gun control laws?
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-australias-gun-laws-reduced-gun-homicides/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187769/
and as evidence you can't really extrapolate anything reliable regarding trends in assaults and homicides from the before and after numbers...
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/13/facebook-posts/no-viral-post-isnt-correct-australias-gun-laws-vio/
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html
George, you have to move past heavily biased (propaganda as you put it) sources when researching. Those thumbnail articles in big media are too often intended to serve specific audiences, short on facts and heavy on slant. It takes reading multiple sources on both sides of an issue to reveal the entire story.
edit: Here's a great resource for helping to determine if you're seeing all sides of the current news reports. Mix 'em up if you're not. I've often been surprised by stepping outside of my media comfort zones, learning some things and recognizing some nuances that may affect my opinions.
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings?field_featured_bias_rating_value=All&field_news_source_type_tid[1]=1&field_news_source_type_tid[2]=2&field_news_source_type_tid[3]=3&field_news_source_type_tid[4]=4
Ask yourself this, if the "militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment includes government organizations like the US Army, Marines, Navy and later to include Air Force and National Guards, why would the framers of the Constitution need to state that the government shall not infringe upon the rights of the "people" that are members of such organizations to keep and bear arms, when the government issues them the arms? It wouldn't make sense to have the government issue arms to members of those "militia" and then not allow then to keep and bear them, thus we need a Constitutional amendment that state that the government can not infringe upon any rights those members to keep and bear arms. If there was an issue with these members keeping and bearing arms, then the government could just not issue them any arms.
Or are we to construe that if it weren't for the 2nd Amendment, the government could force the members of its "militia" to use harsh languages to ward off any enemy because the government would not have to arm the people in their own militias.
The most logical definition of 'militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment refers to people (like in we the people .....) rights to keep and bear arms, in order to have a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, when called upon. Like back in the days of the Revolutionary War, when the Continental Army (as it was known back then as there was no United States yet) fought along side militia consisting of private citizens, that in most cases had to supply their own arms in battle. This is the "militia" that the 2nd Amendment most likely reference. The framers saw the importance of the private citizens rights to keeping and bearing arms and thought best not for the government to infringe upon that right.
Notice that the 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights do not grant any rights to the "people". The Bill of Rights serve to limit the power of our government. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the "people" right to keep and bear arms, that right is already recognized. The 2nd Amendment states that the government shall not infringe upon the "people" right to keep and bear arms. Just like how the 1st Amendment limits the power of government to infringe upon the peoples recognized rights to freedom of religion and speech.
Now one might argue that we no longer need private citizens militia to protect the security of a free State. We have government arm forces, both Federal and State to do that. So the 2nd is now obsolete. But remember back to the Revolutionary War, the militia that fought along side the Continental Army were fighting against the tyranny of their own government, the British. The British did not recognize the U.S. of America until after we won the war. This did not escape the framers of the Constitution, in that the security of a free State might also mean that the "people" might have to protect their free State, when our own government is no longer ...... of the people, by the people and for the people. They saw that having well armed people was the check and balance needed to keep the government in check. They did not foresee that their newly form government under the Constitution of the United States of America was infallible. If they did, they would not had needed to write in the Bill of Rights.