Trump’s Veterans Story Doesn’t Match Up With the Dates on His Own Checks

[Sousuke 1,214]

like i said, seriously not at all important to me. if i want to buy a gun for protection, i can. i don't feel that right is being threatened where i'm at. if i want a cc permit, i can get one. not worried about losing that right either. if i need to get an additional permit to buy ammo, not a big deal. i mentioned moving if you don't like it because i hear "why don't you move" allll the time in reference to 'not liking' state legislation. state's rights, state issue, state decides. a state can have very strict gun laws, that doesn't mean the 2nd is threatened across the board. that's just how this circus works.

I can't. The current California law allows sheriffs the opportunity to discriminate against individuals. Its in litigation (en banc review in the 9th). This could end up in the supreme court within the next 3-4 years.

[Rob L 3,811]

I'm a one issue voter as of this year (scalia's death). I'll vote for the 2nd. Even if that means Trump.

can you educate me on the key court cases pending that potentially go against your view of the 2nd Amendment now that Scalia is gone?

edit: oops looks like you listed one, but the court is not hearing it yet

Edited June 3, 2016 by Rob L

[smilesammich 10,727]

I can't. The current California law allows sheriffs the opportunity to discriminate against individuals. Its in litigation (en banc review in the 9th). This could end up in the supreme court within the next 3-4 years.

so the law allows for sheriffs to review cc applications and deny based on priors?

[Sousuke 1,214]

can you educate me on the key court cases pending that potentially go against your view of the 2nd Amendment now that Scalia is gone?

Peruta vs. San Diego

Pena v Sid

Gentry v Harris

Fyock v. Sunnyvale

Doe v Harris

[Sousuke 1,214]

so the law allows for sheriffs to review cc applications and deny based on priors?

The law allows for sherriffs to review and determine if they think the individual needs a CC. My county was previously known for denying people based upon color, ethnicity etc. There also is a tendency to only give permits to campaign contributors.

[smilesammich 10,727]

The law allows for sherriffs to review and determine if they think the individual needs a CC. My county was previously known for denying people based upon color, ethnicity etc. There also is a tendency to only give permits to campaign contributors.

and you're worried that this will pass? sounds pretty flawed to me. don't see where trump is going to help you.

[Rob L 3,811]

The law allows for sherriffs to review and determine if they think the individual needs a CC. My county was previously known for denying people based upon color, ethnicity etc. There also is a tendency to only give permits to campaign contributors.

I think the risk that Trump will present to International, National and Personal security outweighs the potential risk of any of the cases presented

[Sousuke 1,214]

and you're worried that this will pass? sounds pretty flawed to me. don't see where trump is going to help you.

Its been the law of the land for decades.

Peruta v San Diego that I put in the post to Rob addresses making the state "shall issue" an initial ruling was that California had to change the way they were issued, but it in en banc review at the moment.

Probably a few years from the Supreme Court but that 5th vote is important.

I think the risk that Trump will present to International, National and Personal security outweighs the potential risk of any of the cases presented

Well if the office of the Presidency operates like it should with the inbuilt checks and balances there shouldn't be much risk. Of course the last 15 years have really changed that haven't they?

Edited June 3, 2016 by Sousuke

[Rob L 3,811]

Its been the law of the land for decades.

Peruta v San Diego that I put in the post to Rob addresses making the state "shall issue" an initial ruling was that California had to change the way they were issued, but it in en banc review at the moment.

Probably a few years from the Supreme Court but that 5th vote is important.

Well if the office of the Presidency operates like it should with the inbuilt checks and balances there shouldn't be much risk. Of course the last 15 years have really changed that.

What if the Trump appointee(s) tips the court against another one of your rights? You must be concerned about more than just the 2nd amendment

And, what about the lack of respect that Trump has demonstrated for the existing bill of rights?

Edited June 3, 2016 by Rob L

[smilesammich 10,727]

Its been the law of the land for decades.

sounds terrible. still suggest moving over trump. he ain't gonna do a damn thing for you. but whatever..

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

i've never been hyper concerned about perceived threats to the 2nd amendment. if california's gun laws are too strict for you, why don't you move. personally i'm sick of all this gun grab nonsense at the expense of sensible gun control.

Hmm don't like it move heck yes Are you a Republican now.

[Rob L 3,811]

Its been the law of the land for decades.

Peruta v San Diego that I put in the post to Rob addresses making the state "shall issue" an initial ruling was that California had to change the way they were issued, but it in en banc review at the moment.

Probably a few years from the Supreme Court but that 5th vote is important.

Well if the office of the Presidency operates like it should with the inbuilt checks and balances there shouldn't be much risk. Of course the last 15 years have really changed that haven't they?

Do we really feel that lucky? Would the world survive a crisis on par with the Cuban Missile Crisis with the qualities of ignorance and overreaction that Trump displays daily?

[Sousuke 1,214]

What if the Trump appointee tips the court against another one of your rights? You must be concerned about more than just the 2nd ammendment

Like what? With the exception of Citizen's United, even with Scalia many rulings were quite progressive.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

If the police are violating your 4th amendment rights. Just move .right

If the police are violating your 4th amendment rights. Just move .right

[smilesammich 10,727]

Hmm don't like it move heck yes Are you a Republican now.

i can't wrap my brain around voting for trump out of fear of loosing my 2nd amendment rights. but i'm in virginia soooo, that ain't happening. i would think someone that appears rational like sousuke would go with bernie over trump. bernie definitely isn't a threat to the 2nd.