re: #5 Political Atheist

When did I say it was truly permanent? I think it’s fair to treat standing law as permanent in the practical day to day sense until something solid comes up to cause a re assessment.

Something solid will come up the moment one of the 5 who voted for it is replaced by someone who may not.

It’s not about being ‘fair’, it’s about making an argument without saying “Well, the Supreme Court agrees”.

A reserve cop who has had the gun training, or a retired one has a clear legal reason and ability to carry CCW in California where we have gotten at least that much right. All I have to know about a cop wanting to carry CCW is if he is of good standing. Past that, yeah he gets to carry. I do assert that as the right thing to have arranged under the law.

Why is that all you have to know? Why are you the one who gets to make these decisions, and not the local law enforcement?

sociologically is not my standard at all. I leave that to you.

It is your standard. You argue about sociology all the time. What you are making is a sociological argument, unless it’s a pure ideological one.

Legally when a jurisdiction treats reasonable need so strictly as to deny those who they denied in this case-Heck yeah that’s wrong. That’s a stealth denial of a right to carry under that states law. It’s called a poison pill when it’s written in. When it’s not even written in, it’s an abuse of the law by the government, The state courts should know better than to allow it.

Okay, do you actually know anything about these cases or why they were denied? What the line of reasoning of law enforcement was?

If I were to think about sociologically, well I’d still prefer well written laws left un-abused by the government as the best thing for society long term.

You’re begging the question in assuming a ‘well-written law’ is the one that you want. Why would it be better to let any reserve cop have a weapon? You know what a reserve cop is, right, and that it differs from a normal cop?

At what point might you admit the state has wronged an applicant?

When I know the accurate information about the case. You thought this was a retired police officer and it’s a reserve police officer.

It looks like you’re saying that CCWs should be given presumptively to anyone who’s passed a course, and that local laws allowing the law enforcement to determine if you can or can’t get a weapon is wrong.

Again when states can encroach on constitutional rights or simple rights under the law as written we have a problem to address.

Under the law as written, didn’t Heller and other Supreme Court decisions affirm this sort of gun regulation? Or are you arguing what ‘should be’, and not what is in terms of Supreme Court decisions, saying that they should have taken this up and struck down these regulations that allow local law enforcement to act as gatekeeper for CCW laws?