Federal Court tosses California's concealed weapons rule

[kosmo]

http://news.yahoo.com/court-tosses-cali ... 20826.html

Почему никто ещё не обсуждает?

Что теперь, в Калифорнии можно просто так будет взять и получить Concealed Carry Permit как в каком-нибудь Техасе?

[Albert_al]

Yeah! хотелось чтоб так и было
https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2014/ ... itutional/

[obZhora]

Yeah! хотелось чтоб так и было
https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2014/ ... itutional/

Попробую на след неделе через знакомых разузнать что думают в офисе нашего шерифа на эту тему?

[Jefe]

Что теперь, в Калифорнии можно просто так будет взять и получить Concealed Carry Permit как в каком-нибудь Техасе?

Да

[Trespassers W]

Yeah! хотелось чтоб так и было
https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2014/ ... itutional/

Поздравляю Калифорнийцев!

[Sergey___K]

Поздравляю Калифорнийцев

Сначала Мерилендцев "поздравьте". У них тоже пару месяцев "музыка играла".

On March 5, 2012, a federal judge ruled in Woollard v Sheridan that Maryland's "may issue" concealed carry law is unconstitutional, writing, "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights." The Maryland Attorney General's office appealed the ruling.[9] On March 21, 2013, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (U.S. Federal) unanimously overturned the District Court ruling, holding that the "good & substantial cause" requirements imposed by Maryland law are permissible infringements on the 2nd Amendmen

Поздравьте, лучше всех с "permissible infringements" - новым веяньем в праве.

[Trespassers W]

Поздравьте, лучше всех с "permissible infringements" - новым веяньем в праве.

Да уж, образчик юридического словоблудия. Но тренд в целом скорее положительный, вон Иллинойс тоже давеча нагнули. Хотя это конечно не означает что в Чикаго начнут всем желающим пермиты выдавать.

[Albert_al]

Поздравьте, лучше всех с "permissible infringements"

Ужос и кашмар

[Hamster]

The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion, United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 163 U. S. 627, nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment, Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, and cases cited. Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.

(c) Supreme Court of the United States, 1897

[Virginian]

Рано вы ребята радуетесь, на местах просто добавят кучу "regulations", которые формально не запрещая сделают получение пермита трудновыполнимой процедурой, примерно как в истории с налоговым статусом для tea-party и им подобным организаций.

[Oleg_B]