Speech by OC Sheriff

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by alexf9496

As with any "right", it is subject to limits. The right to free speech does not include hate.
.

Tell that to the Nazis at Skokie... "Hate Speech" is very much protected by the First Amendment. Its one of the bedrocks of the right... Protecting unobjectionable speech is easy.... The first amendment is there to protect the stuff we DISAGREE WITH.

Originally Posted by alexf9496

Unfortunately, DC v. Heller only served to clarify the second ammendment as an individual right. The ruling has nothing to do with carrying a concealed weapon, nor was the case predicated on a CCW, but rather an individual's (Richard Heller) right to bear arms.

It did MUCH, MUCH more than that.

Originally Posted by Female Instructor

BINGO!

She keeps saying over and over again... "I am going to do what I think is right".

GOOD... Every time she says "I" she clarifies for us who gets sued for the 1983 violation....

[X-ffdo]

Originally Posted by X-ffdo

That, Sir is your opinion, I agree in principle with your opinion. The "Whim of the prevailing political wind" is dictated by a desire to control, this need to control comes from ego. I am free of that!

In addition, I'd like to see Calif. going to a "shall issue" stance.
Maybe this ruckus will gain momentum and start the ball rolling. Take care of this issue once and for all!!
End the whims of the prevailing political wind, once and for all.

[Spicy McHaggis]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

Did she also mention quality vs. quantity of CCW's? She has told several people that. One is from the OC Register.

Quality vs. Quantity? I don't get that phrase and how it can be applied to the issuance of CCWs. Sounds like she is trying to say that she will only be issuing to retired LE, judges, reserves, and lawyers. Professionals and LEOs. Hmmm.

Originally Posted by Salute vs. Pitchess

Section 12050 imposes only three limits on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon: the applicant must be of good moral character, show good cause and be a resident of the county. To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.

I can't wait for every single person that is denied or revoked to file a lawsuit against the Sheriff and the OCSD if her policy becomes more restrictive.

[histfan71]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

Heller, pg. 19:

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause.

Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation.

Ok, but it still does not say that a person can carry a loaded and/or concealed firearm outside of one's own property without the proper permit.

[WKC]

Originally Posted by histfan71

Ok, but it still does not say that a person can carry a loaded and/or concealed firearm outside of one's own property without the proper permit.

It doesn't say he can't.

[histfan71]

Originally Posted by WKC

It doesn't say he can't.

No, but the State of California says he can't. Unless the concealed carry laws in California get changed, they still need to be followed. Heller did not change ANY laws in this state.

[WKC]

Originally Posted by histfan71

No, but the State of California says he can't. Unless the concealed carry laws in California get changed, they still need to be followed. Heller did not change ANY laws in this state.

The Heller opinion essentially makes the California laws unconstitutional. Yes, we have to follow the California laws until they are changed but the point is that Heller is a way for us to make that happen.

Heller said that we have the right to bear arms in case of confrontation. The opinion does not limit that right to just in our homes. The loaded gun law prevents us from carrying a gun outside of the home and a few other places. This law abridge our right to bear arms per Heller. The conceal weapon law is the only thing the state can use to say there is a way out. However, the "good cause" requirement runs into other constitutional problems.

Until all this is worked out, we are stuck with what we have right now. But the Heller opinion is helping us a lot.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by histfan71

No, but the State of California says he can't. Unless the concealed carry laws in California get changed, they still need to be followed. Heller did not change ANY laws in this state.

Nobody is suggesting anyone not follow the laws. Quite the contrary... The very ESSENCE of the argument is that we all need to follow the law, and that includes the Sheriff and State of California as well.

EVERY PIECE OF CASE LAW IN CALIFORNIA'S HISTORY THAT HAS UPHELD CALIFORNIA'S CCW LAW, HAS BEEN BASED ON THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, EXERCISABLE ONLY BY THE STATE AND NOT INDIVIDUALS. NONE OF THOSE CASES HAVE ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY ANY MORE. A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL CANNOT RELY ON A CASE THAT HAS BEEN ABROGATED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO JUSTIFY MAINTAINING A POLICY.

[WKC]

Thanks RD.

It is interesting to note that government officials are very good at finding ways to violate the law for the sole purpose of keeping us safe.

[spc]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

Nobody is suggesting anyone not follow the laws. Quite the contrary... The very ESSENCE of the argument is that we all need to follow the law, and that includes the Sheriff and State of California as well.

EVERY PIECE OF CASE LAW IN CALIFORNIA'S HISTORY THAT HAS UPHELD CALIFORNIA'S CCW LAW, HAS BEEN BASED ON THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, EXERCISABLE ONLY BY THE STATE AND NOT INDIVIDUALS. NONE OF THOSE CASES HAVE ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY ANY MORE. A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL CANNOT RELY ON A CASE THAT HAS BEEN ABROGATED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO JUSTIFY MAINTAINING A POLICY.

I like very much the way you express this. We all know the state has been going with this 'Do as I say, not as I do' attitude for ever. With the new decision we may see many changes, changes most of us do not understand as possible because of our lack of expertise in legal knowledge.

Many thanks for your explanations of how the Heller Decision could help along the way towards obtaining our legal constitutional rights through changes in the law.
Changes that make the law comply with the constitution.

spc

[emc002]

Originally Posted by alexf9496

As with any "right", it is subject to limits. The right to free speech does not include hate.

Actually, it does. It may not include the right to incite violence, but you're free all day long to say you hate this or hate that.

[Ken_In_Colo]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

Nobody is suggesting anyone not follow the laws. Quite the contrary... The very ESSENCE of the argument is that we all need to follow the law, and that includes the Sheriff and State of California as well.

EVERY PIECE OF CASE LAW IN CALIFORNIA'S HISTORY THAT HAS UPHELD CALIFORNIA'S CCW LAW, HAS BEEN BASED ON THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, EXERCISABLE ONLY BY THE STATE AND NOT INDIVIDUALS. NONE OF THOSE CASES HAVE ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY ANY MORE. A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL CANNOT RELY ON A CASE THAT HAS BEEN ABROGATED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO JUSTIFY MAINTAINING A POLICY.

That is significant.

[FiringLion]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

EVERY PIECE OF CASE LAW IN CALIFORNIA'S HISTORY THAT HAS UPHELD CALIFORNIA'S CCW LAW, HAS BEEN BASED ON THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, EXERCISABLE ONLY BY THE STATE AND NOT INDIVIDUALS. NONE OF THOSE CASES HAVE ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY ANY MORE. A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL CANNOT RELY ON A CASE THAT HAS BEEN ABROGATED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO JUSTIFY MAINTAINING A POLICY.

If we do this right, things could get very messy...

[alexf9496]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

Tell that to the Nazis at Skokie... "Hate Speech" is very much protected by the First Amendment. Its one of the bedrocks of the right.

Within reason. I'm not here to argue semantics.

Originally Posted by RomanDad

It did MUCH, MUCH more than that.

Of course it did. It wasn't my intent to recap the decision, either.

[CCWInstructor]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

EVERY PIECE OF CASE LAW IN CALIFORNIA'S HISTORY THAT HAS UPHELD CALIFORNIA'S CCW LAW, HAS BEEN BASED ON THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, EXERCISABLE ONLY BY THE STATE AND NOT INDIVIDUALS. NONE OF THOSE CASES HAVE ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY ANY MORE. A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL CANNOT RELY ON A CASE THAT HAS BEEN ABROGATED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO JUSTIFY MAINTAINING A POLICY.

What he is saying is West Law has all these cases now with a yellow flag. I haven't found any red flags yet. Still looking