Yes. I read that this morning. It was great news.

Well truth is that the right to bear arms is the right for civilians to level out government in gun control, so the measures where truly wrong saying that only police can approve the permits. The Constitution approves, ´nuff said. As for guns in general, I´m not really for bearing arms myself. But if police are aloud to carry them, civilians should as well. Otherwise, the dogs outnumber us! Repression can be an ugly thing, as we all know. True power doesn´t come from force, but from will.

Greetings root1657,
That is the spirit! We know there are some out there that still value Liberty and responsibility.
Respectfully
O.A.

As a San Diegan let me say it's not all lefties out here. If you look at the county by county maps, CA is a red state with small pockets of blue that like to think it's their state.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go file for a permit that I may or may not ever choose to use, but I'll affirm my right to have it. :)

I agree, that ANY judicial panel in the Free Democratic Socialist People's Republic would side with the constitution and against the power-grab propoganda machine in Sacramento and the Beltway is pretty... spectacular. Gives me some hope that the pullmonger party may be losing its absolute grip on the leftist coast... much to the relief of those who have been there more than 30 years...

Yes to the power grab. There are quite few legal scholars that even argue that Marbury doesn't even say what is claimed of it, but there's no avenue or venue available to challenge it. It appears that it can only be challenged through a constitutional amendment and I don't think that's going to happen.

what a positive story! Reason lives...for a moment in CA

The 14th Amendment which applies directly to the states, changes rights to 'privileges and immunities', which are different. Privileges and immunities are granted, rights are inherent.

The difficulty with the application of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to the Federal government is the authority the Supreme Court granted to itself i 1803, to allow interpretation. The best example to me is with the 4th. It states it's purpose is to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures The SC determined that if there are unreasonable, there also must be reasonable and has applied that argument since sometime in the 20' or 30's as the result of problems in enforcing Prohibition.

The state may not impose more restrictions on rights than the Constitution, but it may impose more restrictions on it's law enforcement.

Interesting how much weight the courts and SC place on precedents. Hope someone writes an opinion on the 2nd amendment asserting its original meaning. Jefferson kept canons on his property. It is not about hunting!

The word "reasonable" should scare everyone.
In the meantime, so happy to see freedom supported in the state of spin.

No matter how this ultimately turns out, pretty amazing for CA.

So SCOTUS has said they are absolute for the federal government, but states my enact reasonable limitations on the right to bear arms.
OK got that. So who defines reasonable - the various state legislatures, the state and/or federal courts or the people? Clearly it is not the people. So it must be the state legislatures or the courts, or both with the courts having the lst say. From this I take it there is no uniform standard as to what Keep and bear arms means. It varies from state to state and court to court. Is that about how it goes?

Small panel is appealable to the full court. It is also appealable to the supreme court (I think, my law is really weak on this)
But I have another question. Pardon my ignorance but doesn't the constitution and Bill Of rights determine what the federal government can and cannot do. If this is the case, can a state impose restrictions? I have never been able to figure this out. Help?