[marktwain]

So the judge finds that it is not an infringement on the right to bear arms, if a Sheriff can simply say, "you really do not need to protect yourself".

Essentially saying that your life is not worth as much as a shopkeepers money.

[Gay State Conservative]

Maoist don't want members of The Great Unwashed (that's us) to have firearms.So this story shouldn't surprise anyone.

[ThunderSleeps]

The policy requires gun owners to prove to the sheriff that they have a valid reason to carry their gun for self defense.

A valid reason? Read the 2nd Amendment. Oh, ok Sheriff you're a socialist scumbag and don't like it. You want to pick and choose?

Ok, here's reason #2 - was this county completely crime free last month? No murders, rapes, armed assaults, car-jackings, etc? No? Feel my wrist - that's a pulse, I'm alive. I'm alive, there is violent crime here. That (along with the 2nd) is all the reason I need.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The moral to an Aesop fable was that “A Tyrant Needs No Excuse”. However, this moral deserves an axiom: that “Tyrants Will Generally Fabricate Excuses Anyway.”

Unless the 9th Circuit has a pang of conscience, which is unlikely, I doubt that the SCOTUS will decide to hear this case.

This is because the SCOTUS is pretty well set in the idea that if some local government is so bound and determined to deprive their citizens of their rights, that they will fight all the way to the SCOTUS, that it really is a local problem. If the people neither vote out a tyrant, nor leave the area, it is their own fault.

[Carry_Okie]

It’s going to be really entertaining to see how they spin McDonald v. Chicago.