Social security gun ban is coming :(

Post Reply New Topic

News & Releases

May 16th, 2016

COURT RULES THAT RIGHT TO BUY, SELL GUNS PROTECTED BY 2A IN SAF CASE

BELLEVUE, WA – A three-judge panel for the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a 2-1 ruling that “the right to purchase and sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation.

SAF was joined in the case by the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the Calguns Foundation, Inc., and three businessmen, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza. SAF was represented by noted California civil rights attorney Don Kilmer, and the case was supported by an important amicus brief filed by Virginia attorney Alan Gura for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Gura won both the Heller and McDonald Second Amendment rulings before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This is an important decision,” said SAF founder and CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “It remands the case back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the ruling as it pertains to the Second Amendment.”

The lawsuit was against an Alameda County ordinance that prohibits gun stores from being located within 500 feet of a residential zone. Writing for the majority, Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain noted that, “the Ordinance burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment and that it therefore must be subjected to heightened scrutiny—something beyond mere rational basis review.”

“Both SAF and CCRKBA can be proud of this victory,” Gottlieb stated. “We agree with Judge O’Scannlain’s explanation that ‘the county had failed to justify the burden it has placed on the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns. The Second Amendment,’ as the judge wrote, ‘requires something more rigorous than the unsubstantiated assertions offered to the district court.’”

Quoting the Supreme Court ruling in SAF’s 2010 landmark McDonald case, Judge O’Scannlain reiterated, “The right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is not a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.’”

https://www.saf.org/court-rules-that-ri ... n-saf-case

...
Yes, I'm in a very rural area.Ive seen black bears,coyotes and bobcats in the yard.Even a few big timber rattlers,but I like them.There are also a few mountain lions.A woman here did get bit by a rabid fox.There was even a bull with rabies,it's been a few years back,but we had a rabies epidemic one summer.If I remember right about thirteen skunks tested positive for rabies in the county above me.Not to mention tweakers breaking into homes looking for drugs and money.
There are no animal control people here,and it would take the police or game warden around thirty minutes minimum to get here.If they could find it,my drive is unmarked.By that time a rabid animal can have moved on and even if it's out of my yard it's a menace to neighbor's,their pets and other animals.There has been trouble on the past with feral animals attacking my livestock,I have chicken,geese and at one time a few dairy goats and a few head of cattle.If something comes in my yard and tries to eat my poultry,I'm going to shoot it.Anybody here would do the same.
The law says I can have my gun,I did the background check.I have never attempted suicide or assaulted anyone.
I don't beleive all gun owners feel the way you do,I don't, I own a gun.Actually,more than one.I also have a .22 rifle.
You are painting the mentally ill with a broad brush.Most are non violent.Plenty of people commit crimes with a gun,not becuse of mental illness.But becuse they are just evil.

Obviously I think the law has to change. Yes, I paint with a broad brush on this. I don't care if the mentally ill are generally non-violent, I question their judgement.

You could kill a skunk almost as easily with a crossbow.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/
Page 8
Fewer than 5 % of 120,000 homicides were committed by the mentally ill.
Page 10
Only 4% of the mentally ill commit acts of violence.
Out of the general population,65% -130% of mentally ill people are the VICTIMS of violent crime.

5% too many.

5% too many.

I'm talking about the law, there will always be exceptions that make sense, but I don't care about those. I and most gun owners believe that the mentally ill should not have access to guns. How often do you get attacked by a rabid skunk? Aren't there pest control people you can hire? Are you in a rural area?

5% too many.

folks with mental illness are 20% of the population, yet commit 5% of homicides. we're the opposite of violent. we should get a medal, not abrogation of our rights.

so you want to penalize the other 95% why?

Maybe you should concentrate on removing the firearms from the 95% of " normal " people that commit homicide.
Seems like they are more of a menace than a middle aged woman that wants to keep her right to bear arms for valid reasons.
In the case of a home invasion,what would you suggest I do?Ask them to leave politely? Fumble around with a cross bow?Wait paitiently thirty minutes for the cops to arrive?

you are all having opinions based on falsehoods.

I want to help them. Not having a gun is not a penalty.