Reply With Quote
I like Biden's America, been telling you that for a year or more. You're trying to distance yourself I've noticed. You let the old man pop your cherry, no coming back from that tbh.
Sorry this is happening to you, tbh... Joe broke you.
I like Biden's America, been telling you that for a year or more. You're trying to distance yourself I've noticed. You let the old man pop your cherry, no coming back from that tbh.
I thought Russia finished them off in a few weeks. Is that war still going?
so you vote R just to pwn the libs
...are you still paying $5 a gallon?
tee, hee.
Russia ain't. They're paying $2 a gallon like we were paying under President Trump.
I vote R to stop the regressive left. Trump was destroying them on purpose, Biden is destroying them just by being Joe Biden. It was a win/win election as I said many times.
What is it about the left that frightens you so?
Is he though? I'm not seeing it
You hate your daddy Joe. You can't stop reminding us how angry you are he beat the ever living out of Dennison.
Hopefully the butthurt will go away one day...
The mental gymnastics of Trump s, smh
You're slow to see things that are right in front of you
Of course I read it. I am the one who cited it
You're responding to a claim I never made. I said "there's not a single CHL holder in California" to which you responded "That's a feature, not a bug". That's why I said SCOTUS said no. I know the AG's decision was to not require cause to carry. Texas has the same "moral character" clause only they list it out as specific issues like misdemeanors and child support, etc..
Of course I read it. I am the one who cited it
You're responding to a claim I never made. I said "there's not a single CHL holder in California" to which you responded "That's a feature, not a bug". That's why I said SCOTUS said no. I know the AG's decision was to not require cause to carry. Texas has the same "moral character" clause only they list it out as specific issues like misdemeanors and child support, etc..
It's easy to quote what you said:Of course I read it. I am the one who cited it
You're responding to a claim I never made. I said "there's not a single CHL holder in California" to which you responded "That's a feature, not a bug". That's why I said SCOTUS said no. I know the AG's decision was to not require cause to carry. Texas has the same "moral character" clause only they list it out as specific issues like misdemeanors and child support, etc..
And I said that's a feature not a bug, because what a person "of good moral character" can be defined as needing to meet whatever arbitrary requirements, which is the point I was making in my original post.
The SCOTUS simply ruled on States asking for one specific requirement by States, but didn't actually remove the ability for States to issue permits. Which means States can include any arbitrary provision (like "of good moral character", but minus the single one they ruled uncons utional) in order to deny issuing permits, and relitigating this all over again. This is why this ruling is largely inconsequential, and why the California AG won't fight this, as there's plenty of other, still allegedly cons utional, ways to deny permits.
You're using your speculation as to how the authorities having jurisdiction will consider (or alter their consideration of) good moral character. That's not noteworthy enough to even debate. As it stands, "why do you need it" is no longer a question they can ask. If they want to go to arbitrary moral requirements, SCOTUS can address that as well.
No, I'm not speculating. I'm pointing out the fact that the ruling kept that door open, and even the author for the majority opinion was explicit about it. The fact that the California AG brought it up as well, simply backs up that contention.
Of course the SCOTUS can address that as well, post lengthy litigation, which I also pointed out. What needs to happen is the SCOTUS setting a legal standard of what those requirements must meet in order not to be uncons utional, which they didn't do this time around (and I found strange).
Right in front of me is the board making fun of you for being slow.
"Who's the wild man now!!!"
SCOTUS scotus directly causing an additional many thousands of gun injuries and deaths per year
More guns always means more gun violence
SCOTUS directly causing an additional many thousands of gun injuries and deaths per year
More guns always means more gun violence
Gun manufacturer stocks jumped, every one is owned by private equity
Again, the bottom line is that California cannot ask "why do you need a gun?"
This is a big deal. It shows California AG getting ahead of the lawsuits if someone was denied because their reason to carry didn't meet the threshold of the authority having jurisdiction.
OK Slingblade. Some people call it a Kaiser blade, you call it a slingblade mmmm hmmm
Yes, you need to shield for one the three board maga s that give you the post likes that you crave.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
