“If taken to its extreme, your argument seems to suggest safety concerns are irrelevant.” – 9th Circuit Judge Susan Graber during oral testimony on the Peruta “may issue” California concealed carry permit case [via mercurynews.com].
Now you’re getting it.
Every time I read an opinion or statement from the 9th circuit, I’m left wondering: bro, do you even law?
Very little pretense of consulting the law remains in quite a few courts.
Love her surname. Most appropriate. I guessing dropping the extra ‘b’ comes from olde English.
“Bro, do you even law?”
Don’t feel bad, your honor, it was never much of a stretch from “imaginary” to “irrelevant” in the first place.
Some interesting comments below the article as well.
I rhink you have the right of it. The constitution does not qualify “shall not be infringed” by adding, “except for public safety.”
Oh, and the public safety argument is specious to begin with. Citizens who carry with permits are documented to be the safest segment of society – safer even than LEO.
The “safety concerns” are addressed by abackground check and training. The “What if’s” are not safety, they’re fear.
Background checks and required training are just as much an infringement as any.
Background checks are a necessary evil IMO – you can’t say “convicted murderers can’t have guns” without a way of checking to see if someone is a convicted murderer. The real issue is that “background check” is too close to “owner registration”.
And I have no problem with a training requirement, as long as the training is free and readily accessible. I’d like to know that people carrying a fun in public have a reasonable chance of hitting what they’re aiming at.
Keep convicted murderers behind bars. Problem solved.
I support the death penalty so problem solved.
Background checks are not necessary, evil or not. I was the jury foreman on a trial where we convicted a man of trafficking a kilo of cocaine. He worked at Robbins AFB and was subject to a background check and finger printing every two years just to work there. Background checks do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
If you are worried about recidivism, then, like Chip said, lock em up and throw away the key.
But if your sentence has been served, you have paid your debt to society. Your rights need to be reinstated. Gun ownership is a right. Anyone intent on murder is not going to worry about a gun law so why infringe on everyone just to pretend we are making us safer from criminals?
Background checks are a necessity of our flawed, revolving-door justice system.
Ideally, anyone released from prison, for any crime, is (in a timely manner) restored full rights. If they’re deemed not capable of being responsible/law-abiding, then they shouldn’t be released, or to a halfway facility or mental institution for additional assistance. Most recidivism seems to happen within 2-3 years of release. If they can keep it together for that long, I don’t see much reason to continue denying them any rights.
Since BGC’s empirically do nothing to keep criminals from obtaining guns, they can ONLY be considered an infringement.
I’d like to see proof of voter training, but that’ll be a frigid day in Hell, I’m sure.
Regardless, there is no provision in the Constitution, or the Amendments, for such prerequisites.
The “if you can’t trust them with a gun, then keep them locked up” argument is all fine and dandy in theory, but it will never work in reality. We wouldn’t have enough prisons to hold them all.
Do YOU want to see billions more of our tax dollars every year being directed to house more of those scumbags? No? I don’t either.
Besides, how would you qualify “trust”? How would we know that an ex-con is trustworthy again? Unless those in charge of making such decisions can do it with 100% accuracy, we’re STILL going to need safeguards in place.
Not that I think background checks are a good idea. They’re unconstitutional on their face. I don’t have an answer for this scenario, but we need a way of keeping guns away from those who’ve lost the right to them. And just locking them up until they’re deemed trustworthy is an unsustainable option.
Yes, you can. In fact the Legislature does that with almost every other crime. All laws, except a very few if any, are designed to punish and to use the THREAT of punishment as the deterrent. State action only kicks in after the deterrence has failed. Nothing stands between the criminal and his crime but his conscience, if any.
But if your sentence has been served, you have paid your debt to society.
So what about the criminal’s debt to his victims? When is that debt paid?
Screw that “debt to society” crap. If people were hurt, physically or financially, they need to be compensated by the criminal who caused them pain. Until the criminal does so, no rights should be restored. Period.
Ralph, please don’t ask me to defend the justice system. I can’t. So I won’t. No doubt criminals do irreparable damage. I don’t believe rehabilitation works on adults. Push for harsher sentences. I’ll support that. But if you are a free man, and you owe someone and lose a civil case, you’re damn right you should pay up. But what does legal gun ownership have to do with the ability or inability to pay for your crimes? If you are on the inside, the State is responsible for your security. On the outside, you are on your own. You may need a gun. Abuse that right and I’m with you. No mas!
Never mind the proven ineffectiveness of background checks as a means of keeping guns out of killers’ hands.
Once we’re already talking about a convicted murderer, are we seriously pondering whether it is only the lack of a firearm that prevents such a person from committing further violence and possibly killing someone again?
If taken to the extreme she makes it sound as if liberty concerns are irrelevant.
Then ice things about taking stuff to the extreme is you’re left with a very simple choice: liberty for all or chaining everyone to a wall for 23 hours a day.
The sad part of that is I’m way too many people would opt to be chained to the wall. For the children.
Mindless Orwellian logic. How does a judge argue safety? When in fact judges rule police cannot be sued for not making the public safe.
How is a mother strolling a baby on a public sidewalk safe? How is anyone “safe” from a criminal?
No ROI on that judges’ decision making process.
Why are they so concerned about the safety of the violent criminals anyway??
Oh… wait… wait…. I remember now. ….Because the courts can make much more money by prosecuting and defending repeat offenders at the expense of the tax payer…. but not if they are dead.
Nor the police, nor prosecutors, nor corrections, nor district attorney’s, nor court reporters, nor expert witnesses, nor bail bondsmen, nor bounty hunters, nor snack food companies (prison stores). Nor any company that logistically supports 2 million prisoners.
Here is video link. First 5 minutes or so they are waiting on judges….good to watch.
Man that is hard to watch. Makes me feel like lawyers and judges could rape your 5 year old daughter and as long as they were able to rationalize the act with verbal calisthenics, we would have to accept the decision. If it takes 900 words to say no, you probably should have said yes.
Argument fallacy. The Courts (especially the 9th) cannot protect you from someone with a gun, and it is wrongful, not just wrong for them to say that they can.
The quote about trading liberty to get safety yields neither, has been around for … over a 100 years? What actually does that mean? The judge clearly does not understand or does not agree with that age old axiom illustrated over and over in just the last 100 years. The historical truth is this. The general population at large is actually less safe when their liberties are taken away to create a “safer” society. Progressives and the intelligencia simply cannot wrap their heads around this lesson paid for by 100+ million lives exterminated by tyrants over the last 100 years. Many of these tyrants (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and others) seized power by promises of a utopian “safe,” just and equal society. There is irony here for progressives and the political intellegencia. They eat their young. So taking away liberty of the populous actually makes their lives less safe. Our founders understood all this and it is precisely why the worked so hard to create a government for the people by the people that was wired to do everything possible to make it tyrant-proof through the distribution rather than the centralization of power. In other words, to preserve individual liberty at all cost because in the end, that is where the greatest “safety” resides.
I’m going to archive what you wrote. Beautifully written.
“If taken to the extreme”, your remark seems to indicate that the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant, Your Honor. [See, I can take a lot of arguments to the extreme and turn them into something–well, extreme…]
Giving leftists their utopian despotic society would almost be worth it, just to watch what happens to them when the government is let off the leash. I love poetic justice.
If taken to its extreme, the Constitution seems to suggest that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You would think if that were the case, they’d have said so, clearly.
Your Honor can we have a quiet night walk in Oakland?
1. The trite response is: The Second Amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in the interest of public safety.
2. The claim by police chiefs and some sheriffs that “more guns means more gun crime” is itself trite. It is overbroad and unsupported by research, and ignores the fact that holders of CCWs, nationally, are less likely to commit crime than even the police. An accurate statement would be: “More guns in the hands of criminals means more gun crime.” But we are not talking about criminals, we are talking about law abiding citizens who have passed a thorough background check and have been trained in the proper use of lethal force and the practical aspects of firing a handgun. There is no substantive evidence that more guns in the hands of law abiding people will lead to more gun crime; therefore there is no substantial public policy basis to prevent them from carrying arms.
+1. This is the same point Paul Clement made.
What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand Lady? I mean the 1st Amendment is a fundamental right too and you would not be even think about asking these questions. Or dare I say abortion… Another so-called fundamental ‘right’ in your mind, one I might add that is not found in the Constitution but I digress…
They do not understand, Decent, hardworking, law abiding people have had enough of this nonsense. Many are just ignoring the law because it does not reflect or abide by the constitution. I am more concerned about a 16 year old driving and texting killing me than anyone with a CWP. When our own goverment and president does not abide by the constitution, it is the start of tyranny. I see more and more people prepping and hoarding ammunition. America is on a rapid slid toward collapse when young people don’t even know the difference between the civil war and the war for independance. Lost cause.
The “We are all dumber for having listened to you” meme from Billy Madison applies here.
LOL. Quote of the day: That’s Exactly What I’m Suggesting Edition.
Again, I ask why anyone continues to live in socialist strongholds like Kalifornistan, DC, NYC, Chicago, etc. Yes, the West Coast is beautiful, but so what? Is it worth your freedom? Vote with your wallet and your feet, and let those socialist hellholes collapse under the weight of a colossal government whose productive tax base has fled. Staying put and living with the burden does nothing but enable the Leftist machine.
Well we can’t trust the judgments of a judge who doesn’t understand the law so we should disbar her for safety.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.