Wat’s Carbon Water-N-Stuff Thread - Concepts In Iron And Wood!!!

[DeluxAuto]

I read the entire thing one winter. Coldest winter of my adult life.

What year was that?

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down California Ban on Open Carry of Firearms​

The ban violates a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling because open carry is ‘part of this Nation’s history and tradition,’ the new ruling says.

Matthew Vadum

1/2/2026|Updated: 1/2/2026

A divided federal appeals court on Jan. 2 struck down California’s ban on open carry of firearms in most parts of the state, finding it violates the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 in favor of a gun owner, finding the state prohibition on open carry of guns in counties that have more than 200,000 residents violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Around 95 percent of the Golden State’s inhabitants reside in counties of that size.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/fe...m_source=partner&utm_campaign=TheLibertyDaily

Booyah!!!

 

[HisArpy]

Booyah!!!

It's great news, while it lasts. I fully expect the 9th to go en banc and overturn the decision. They'll likely do it sua sponte if Ca doesn't appeal to them first.

With this decision there's now a circuit split and the SCOTUS is going to be asked to weigh in. I'm of the opinion that they won't because ball less cucks who have fucked the law with political ideology instead of advocacy for truth for too many decades.

But, assuming Ca doesn't appeal, the State will immediately enact a full state licensing scheme for Open Carry that will be prohibitively expensive for 99.9% of the population and which will also limit where in public one can carry openly. $5000 per year permit fee, 25 hours of "training" per year, a psyche exam with 72 hour "observation period," 100 letters of reference, 700 days minimum to complete a background check, no automatic renewal, weapon must be fully encapsulated by the holster which can only be worn between 3 o'clock and 3:05 o'clock on a belt of a specified thickness/width/color/material, Holster must be "certified as not unsafe for open carry" by the State, license must be prominently displayed on a lanyard of a specified length/color/material that is "certified and complying with regulation" by the State, yada, yada, yada. Just to be able to exercise a Constitutional Right we've been doing since the era of the founding.

Because SCOTUS can't bring itself to come out and say those 4 little words and Leftists have been crowding through that open door for over a century now.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

It's great news, while it lasts. I fully expect the 9th to go en banc and overturn the decision. They'll likely do it sua sponte if Ca doesn't appeal to them first.

With this decision there's now a circuit split and the SCOTUS is going to be asked to weigh in. I'm of the opinion that they won't because ball less cucks who have fucked the law with political ideology instead of advocacy for truth for too many decades.

But, assuming Ca doesn't appeal, the State will immediately enact a full state licensing scheme for Open Carry that will be prohibitively expensive for 99.9% of the population and which will also limit where in public one can carry openly. $5000 per year permit fee, 25 hours of "training" per year, a psyche exam with 72 hour "observation period," 100 letters of reference, 700 days minimum to complete a background check, no automatic renewal, weapon must be fully encapsulated by the holster which can only be worn between 3 o'clock and 3:05 o'clock on a belt of a specified thickness/width/color/material, Holster must be "certified as not unsafe for open carry" by the State, license must be prominently displayed on a lanyard of a specified length/color/material that is "certified and complying with regulation" by the State, yada, yada, yada. Just to be able to exercise a Constitutional Right we've been doing since the era of the founding.

Because SCOTUS can't bring itself to come out and say those 4 little words and Leftists have been crowding through that open door for over a century now.

Shall not be infringed.



By any means necessary . . . .

 

[HisArpy]

Shall not be infringed.

Unless the State needs to impose a fee.
Unless the cowards of society will be afraid.
Unless the Sheriff doesn't like it.
Unless government needs to take off the velvet glove.


You get the picture.

 

[Rebel5soul]

It's great news, while it lasts. I fully expect the 9th to go en banc and overturn the decision. They'll likely do it sua sponte if Ca doesn't appeal to them first.

With this decision there's now a circuit split and the SCOTUS is going to be asked to weigh in. I'm of the opinion that they won't because ball less cucks who have fucked the law with political ideology instead of advocacy for truth for too many decades.

But, assuming Ca doesn't appeal, the State will immediately enact a full state licensing scheme for Open Carry that will be prohibitively expensive for 99.9% of the population and which will also limit where in public one can carry openly. $5000 per year permit fee, 25 hours of "training" per year, a psyche exam with 72 hour "observation period," 100 letters of reference, 700 days minimum to complete a background check, no automatic renewal, weapon must be fully encapsulated by the holster which can only be worn between 3 o'clock and 3:05 o'clock on a belt of a specified thickness/width/color/material, Holster must be "certified as not unsafe for open carry" by the State, license must be prominently displayed on a lanyard of a specified length/color/material that is "certified and complying with regulation" by the State, yada, yada, yada. Just to be able to exercise a Constitutional Right we've been doing since the era of the founding.

Because SCOTUS can't bring itself to come out and say those 4 little words and Leftists have been crowding through that open door for over a century now.

A law that St. Benitez will immediately issue an injunction against and here we go >>>>>>>>> back to the 9th.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Unless the State needs to impose a fee.
Unless the cowards of society will be afraid.
Unless the Sheriff doesn't like it.
Unless government needs to take off the velvet glove.


You get the picture.

Those mongoloids post here. The air is heavy with the odor of fouled breeches.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Anyone who, even for a second, feels a pure, clear confidence on hearing the truth will experience immeasurable happiness. Why? Because, at that moment, that person is not caught up in the concept of a self or a living being or a life span. He is not caught up in concepts about the world, nor is he caught up in concepts about nothingness. He does not take any notice of the idea that this is a sign, or this or that is not a sign.

For if you are caught up in ideas, then you will be caught up in the self. And even if you are caught up in ideas about nothingness, you will still be caught up in the self. That's why we should not get attached to the belief that things either exist or do not exist. This is the hidden meaning when I say that my teachings are a raft to be abandoned when you see true being.

~ Diamond Sutra



I discovered that it is necessary, absolutely necessary, to believe in nothing. That is, we have to believe in something which has no form and no color--something which exists before all forms and colors appear... No matter what god or doctrine you believe in, if you become attached to it, your belief will be based more or less on a self-centered idea.

~ Shunryu Suzuki

 

[Wat_Tyler]

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

 

[coati]

Shall not be infringed.

By any means necessary . . . .

More big talk from a keyboard warrior...

 

[Wat_Tyler]

https://i.imgur.com/NKFh1mU.png

 

[Rightguide]

It's great news, while it lasts. I fully expect the 9th to go en banc and overturn the decision. They'll likely do it sua sponte if Ca doesn't appeal to them first.

With this decision there's now a circuit split and the SCOTUS is going to be asked to weigh in. I'm of the opinion that they won't because ball less cucks who have fucked the law with political ideology instead of advocacy for truth for too many decades.

But, assuming Ca doesn't appeal, the State will immediately enact a full state licensing scheme for Open Carry that will be prohibitively expensive for 99.9% of the population and which will also limit where in public one can carry openly. $5000 per year permit fee, 25 hours of "training" per year, a psyche exam with 72 hour "observation period," 100 letters of reference, 700 days minimum to complete a background check, no automatic renewal, weapon must be fully encapsulated by the holster which can only be worn between 3 o'clock and 3:05 o'clock on a belt of a specified thickness/width/color/material, Holster must be "certified as not unsafe for open carry" by the State, license must be prominently displayed on a lanyard of a specified length/color/material that is "certified and complying with regulation" by the State, yada, yada, yada. Just to be able to exercise a Constitutional Right we've been doing since the era of the founding.

Because SCOTUS can't bring itself to come out and say those 4 little words and Leftists have been crowding through that open door for over a century now.

If the ruling is overturned en banc, the case will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court. In my view, SCOTUS would uphold open carry, since California’s law is a clear outlier. The majority of states permit open carry, and under current Second Amendment jurisprudence, that national consensus matters.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

 

[HisArpy]

If the ruling is overturned en banc, the case will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court. In my view, SCOTUS would uphold open carry, since California’s law is a clear outlier. The majority of states permit open carry, and under current Second Amendment jurisprudence, that national consensus matters.

National consensus doesn't really matter. Look at the circumstances in Bruen if you don't believe me. And then realize that Bruen left the door wide open despite how it seemed to close it.

As long as the robed cucks in DC refuse to acknowledge those 4 little words, we're never going to have "gun rights" as the framers intended. Instead we're going to continue to be given only those privileges the government deems allowable under limited circumstances.

 

[Rightguide]

National consensus doesn't really matter. Look at the circumstances in Bruen if you don't believe me. And then realize that Bruen left the door wide open despite how it seemed to close it.

As long as the robed cucks in DC refuse to acknowledge those 4 little words, we're never going to have "gun rights" as the framers intended. Instead we're going to continue to be given only those privileges the government deems allowable under limited circumstances.

I respectfully disagree. The Supreme Court’s aversion to “outlier laws” comes from its method of constitutional interpretation, especially in areas like the Second Amendment, where the Court has made clear that novel policy experiments or regional preferences do not define constitutional rights.

First, under the Court’s historical-tradition framework (clearly articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen), a law must be consistent with the nation’s tradition and historical understanding of the right. When a state adopts a rule that is rare, novel, or unique, especially one that departs sharply from historical practice, it signals that the law is not rooted in the constitutional tradition the Court is bound to enforce. Outlier status is evidence that the restriction is a modern invention rather than a longstanding limitation.

Second, the Court is demonstrably wary of allowing one state to redefine a national constitutional right. If a small minority of jurisdictions could impose severe restrictions that most states reject, constitutional rights would be interpreted geographically, which is absurd. The Court sees this as incompatible with the idea that the Constitution sets uniform minimum guarantees that states may not undercut. By contrast, isolated laws invite arbitrary enforcement and policy-driven balancing, something the Court has explicitly rejected, especially in Second Amendment cases. There are clear, well-established examples where the Supreme Court struck down or sharply limited outlier laws.

 

[HisArpy]

I respectfully disagree. The Supreme Court’s aversion to “outlier laws” comes from its method of constitutional interpretation, especially in areas like the Second Amendment, where the Court has made clear that novel policy experiments or regional preferences do not define constitutional rights.

First, under the Court’s historical-tradition framework (clearly articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen), a law must be consistent with the nation’s tradition and historical understanding of the right. When a state adopts a rule that is rare, novel, or unique, especially one that departs sharply from historical practice, it signals that the law is not rooted in the constitutional tradition the Court is bound to enforce. Outlier status is evidence that the restriction is a modern invention rather than a longstanding limitation.

Second, the Court is demonstrably wary of allowing one state to redefine a national constitutional right. If a small minority of jurisdictions could impose severe restrictions that most states reject, constitutional rights would be interpreted geographically, which is absurd. The Court sees this as incompatible with the idea that the Constitution sets uniform minimum guarantees that states may not undercut. By contrast, isolated laws invite arbitrary enforcement and policy-driven balancing, something the Court has explicitly rejected, especially in Second Amendment cases. There are clear, well-established examples where the Supreme Court struck down or sharply limited outlier laws.

This a great analysis but it doesn't track with the SCOTUS decisions regarding 2A cases. A great many cases which would have either curtailed the novel experimentation you describe, or returned us to the founders' vision of our rights, were denied Cert. Of the few which were accepted, the needle was moved so little or even nudged backward toward elimination of 2A rights, that it becomes clear that the SCOTUS is afraid of making the obvious decision regarding the Constitutionality of many/most gun control laws. They do it by avoiding any mention of the elephant in the room - those 4 little words.

Until they pull on their big boy pants, this will continue.

There are policy reasons they're doing this but that should be outside the scope of their analysis since they're sworn to rule on the law not policy. It's this policy based decision making that has many, including myself, saying that SCOTUS shapes policy instead of law. Barrett's recent decisions regarding gun cases illustrate this clearly, she is good with status quo because she's more about "safety" than what the law actually says/means.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

By any means necessary.

~ Malcolm X

 

[Rightguide]

This a great analysis but it doesn't track with the SCOTUS decisions regarding 2A cases. A great many cases which would have either curtailed the novel experimentation you describe, or returned us to the founders' vision of our rights, were denied Cert. Of the few which were accepted, the needle was moved so little or even nudged backward toward elimination of 2A rights, that it becomes clear that the SCOTUS is afraid of making the obvious decision regarding the Constitutionality of many/most gun control laws. They do it by avoiding any mention of the elephant in the room - those 4 little words.

Until they pull on their big boy pants, this will continue.

There are policy reasons they're doing this but that should be outside the scope of their analysis since they're sworn to rule on the law not policy. It's this policy based decision making that has many, including myself, saying that SCOTUS shapes policy instead of law. Barrett's recent decisions regarding gun cases illustrate this clearly, she is good with status quo because she's more about "safety" than what the law actually says/means.

Here are clear, well-established examples where the Supreme Court struck down or sharply limited “outlier laws”

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
The Court struck down D.C.’s handgun ban, noting it was an extreme outlier: a complete prohibition on an entire class of arms commonly possessed nationwide.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
Chicago’s handgun ban, similar to D.C.’s, was invalidated after the Court emphasized that most states allowed handgun ownership, making the bans anomalous

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)
New York’s “may-issue” concealed carry regime was struck down as an outlier that gave officials broad discretion not found in most states or historical tradition.

Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Executing intellectually disabled defendants was ruled unconstitutional after the Court noted a strong national consensus against it, with only a shrinking minority of states permitting it.

Roper v. Simmons (2005)
The death penalty for juveniles was struck down because only a handful of states still allowed it, making the practice an outlier.

Graham v. Florida (2010)
Life without parole for juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses was invalidated as rare and inconsistent with evolving national standards.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Texas’s sodomy law was struck down in part because only a small number of states still criminalized private consensual conduct, making it an outlier.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
State bans on same-sex marriage were invalidated after the Court emphasized the growing national recognition of marriage equality and the untenability of geographic inconsistency in fundamental rights.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Flag-burning bans were struck down despite emotional appeal, with the Court noting that only a few states attempted to criminalize expressive conduct of that kind.

All that said, it is we know that the Supreme Court abhors interlocutory cases, that is, cases that have not reached final judgment at the District or Appellate court levels. The Court generally insists on a fully developed factual and legal record before granting review, often preferring to avoid premature rulings on unsettled matters. This, of course, ensures judicial economy and reserves Supreme Court intervention for clear-cut legal questions arising from completed proceedings.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

 

[Wat_Tyler]

 

[Wat_Tyler]

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Orwell was that rare progressive intellectual willing to admit that his own side’s cultural cluelessness was driving workers into the far right’s arms.


There is very little that is new except for the history - and observations made by Sentient Life - that you/one do/es not know.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

For your past, for your flaws, and ultimately for your stress; I judge no one whom I’ve met along the way because in a sense we were all wounded in our own ways.

~ Forrest Curran




A great tree develops over time and can tell stories not only those of happiness, but also those that contain pain from what it has seen over the years, and as a result is the wise ancient tree that it is today. As the seasons change, the tree naturally goes through changes as well: where the leaves turn yellow and orange in the fall, falling by the Winter, returning in the Spring, and with full set of new leafs by the Summer. Love is no different in that there will be times when we are fully naked in the Winter, and left to wonder about Spring when it seemed so easy to love, yet the wise tree knows that no winter will last forever no matter how cold it may be.

~ Forrest Curran