Federal Judge Orders Permanent Injunction Against Riverside County

Injunction Sought in Federal Lawsuit Over Riverside, California Sheriff Stan Sniff’s “Discriminatory and Unconstitutional” Handgun License Policies
Federal Judge Orders Permanent Injunction Against Riverside County Over Unconstitutional ‘CCW’ Carry License Policy

LOS ANGELES-(Ammoland.com)- Today, plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit filed last fall announced that Senior United States District Judge Dean D. Pregerson entered an order permanently enjoining Riverside County, California from having a policy and practice of preventing legal U.S. residents from exercising their right to apply for a carry license in Van Nieuwenhuyzen, et al. v. Riverside, CA Sheriff Stanley Sniff, et al. A copy of the court filings can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.

The order states that “this Judgment for a Permanent Injunction shall be entered as to and against the defendants in this action, who are now and hereby enjoined from enforcing, and continuing to enforce, implement or abide by any policy regarding the issuance of permits to carry concealed weapons (CCWs) to the extent that such policy prohibits non-U.S. citizens who are otherwise qualified, lawful permanent residents of the County of Riverside, and who are not otherwise prohibited from owning firearms, from applying or obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon under state law, Cal. Pen. Code § 26150, et seq.”

The challenged policy was carried out under former Sheriff Stanley Sniff, who lost to current Sheriff Chad Bianco in the last election. Sheriff Bianco campaigned on a promise to promote access to concealed carry licenses and reform earlier policies. “This coalition victory is important because it not only helps to restore access to the fundamental right to bear arms, it also sends a crystal-clear message to carry licensing authorities that the rights of the people can and will be enforced in our courts,” commented FPC President Brandon Combs.

The case was brought by a coalition of constitutional rights advocacy groups including Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, and Riverside County resident Arie van Nieuwenhuyzen, a permanent resident alien who has lived in Riverside since 1983 and is a business owner there.

“We’re delighted with the outcome of this case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This isn’t our first experience with such a policy, and we’re happy to have had good partners in this challenge. Mr. Van Nieuwenhuyzen has been a productive, law-abiding member of his community for decades, and there is no good reason to discourage or deny someone of his background and standing the ability to apply for a carry license.”

The plaintiffs were represented by attorney George M. Lee of San Francisco litigation firm Seiler Epstein LLP. “This case was about eliminating discriminatory and unconstitutional policies and practices,” said Lee. “The Defendants' policies and practices violated the Constitution, and thus, we were compelled to take action.”

“The Second Amendment means that people have a fundamental, individual right to carry loaded firearms outside their homes for lawful purposes, and the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that those human rights are protected not just for those individuals the government favors, but for all people legally residing in our nation,” explained Lee. “We are delighted with the outcome in this case and look forward to restoring civil rights in future cases.”

Anyone who is prevented from applying for a carry license or who has been denied a carry license because they are not a U.S. citizen, no matter where they live, should contact the FPC/FPF Legal Action Hotline at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or (855) 252-4510 (available 24/7/365) as soon as possible.

Please consider donating to help support more cases like this.


About Firearms Policy CoalitionFirearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

About Firearms Policy FoundationFirearms Policy Foundation logo

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

About The Calguns FoundationCalguns Foundation

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

  • 49 thoughts on “Federal Judge Orders Permanent Injunction Against Riverside County

    1. Since @V has stated his desire for clarity by posting to the top of the page so all may know of EAM, I will show @V the same respect. Please refer to his replies to his comment further down the page for reference. Enjoy.

      @V

      I’ll answer your last question first. We get quite a few left wingers who come here in support of the second amendment. Its nothing special. Heck, ammoland even has an acknowledged author who openly admits to it. Greg Camp. Now most do suffer from a case of hypocrisy, which I do call them out on. The last and most notable was a boy named “Green watch Dog.”

      Had you taken the time to read my comment, then you would have noticed that I did not dispute there are people who try to bring race and bigotry here. I have a nice documented history of opposing them. Of course, if you wanted to reply to EAM, you could have taken the time to reference him in your comment. So are you admitting you made a mistake in not doing so? And before you question the civics abilities of others, my record here on that front is five years long and a lot more learned than yourself. If you would like me to provide examples I would be more than happy to do so as on several occasions I have had to explain the history of citizenship and the founders views on Blackstone as opposed to Vattel.

      What you did however was attempt to lump all in with a generalized accusation. While we do have bad actors who show up here, those of us who are true constitutionalists here do make an effort to call them out and expose them on our own without blatantly labeling all under the same infraction. Since you have failed to understand this while you were so busy trying to purport yourself with a false sense of superiority, I’ll put this in absolute plain English for you. Stop accusing all here as being guilty. Understand? The majority of us do support and want legal immigration.

      Now lets cover the lies you are still trying to defend.

      1. “Hoax”
      Lets take a quick look at the language you used here since you chose not to answer some of the information presented to you by attempting to act as though you didn’t see it.

      “In EAM’s comment, the word “horde” (which was incorrectly spelt) was used to imply a very large number of people that are attacking the sovereignty of the U.S.”

      Those are your words. Now, regardless of whether or not EAM is an idiot, bigot, or whatever else you want to call him, we currently have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions who are ignoring the laws of this nation, the Sovereign laws which lay out how immigration, legal residency, and citizenship are supposed to be conducted. I’m going to ask you straight out here and expect an answer, do not dodge this a second time. DO YOU DENY THAT THERE ARE MULTITUDES, LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE VIOLATING THE LAWS OF OUR NATION AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER? Simple yes or no.

      That is what you are calling a hoax. While the term Horde is a derogatory synonym of the word multitude, it is accurate and used in the correct context to the situation even if EAM doesn’t have access to a dictionary. Now, since you are trying to distract from the fact that you tried to label everyone here who disagrees with you as lumping illegal and legal immigrants together(heck I even gave you a chance to admit to not having worded that correctly, and you are now tripling down on what you said), you granted me this little gem…

      “the word “horde” (which was incorrectly spelt) was used to imply a very large number of people that are attacking the sovereignty of the U.S. and inciting bigotry of Muslims and Latinos.”

      So what exactly is it you are defending here? Well, since I flat out pointed out you were trying to cry “Racism!” as a means to silence dissent you were unable to use that word, so you instead chose to use bigotry in its place. So apparently you do understand how synonyms work like horde and multitude were before, since bigotry is a synonym of prejudice which in the context of race(latinos in this case) is a synonym of racism. So you are admitting to exactly what I said you are doing, crying racism, to which you leveled it at everyone here, the qualifier(that’s the stipulation that distinguishes who the accusation applies to) being whether or not the person agrees with your use of the word “hoax.” Again, for those following along, here is V’s original quote as seen above.

      “STOP grouping all LEGAL immigrants who have achieved permanent resident status into the “muslim and latino hoards” hoax.”

      So there you are in a single, separate line stating that anyone who doesn’t view the hundreds of thousands of illegals violating our national sovereignty at the border as a hoax, then they are guilty of lumping Legal immigrants with a permanent residency status together with them(illegals). Anyone with even a single working eye can see what you are implying there, it isn’t rocket science, it isn’t being taken out of context… That is what you said, your own words. Remember how I stated my reason for criticizing you was that you contradict yourself in your statements? Right there you did, signifying there is a difference between legal permanent resident non citizens and those who are crossing our border illegally. That brings me to my next point, or rather my next direct quote of your own words.

      “Those that can escape dire conditions in the adjacent geographical regions that are easily covered by land, will do so. No wall or closed mentality such as yours will prevent that.”

      Ah, I love it when they argue. So looking at what you just said there, those of us with a closed mentality to those crossing our southern border ILLEGALLY, well how dare we oppose that! Since central America is connected to North America, and since they are illegally crossing for “dire conditions” and violating our laws, that makes it ok in your book. Setting aside the fact that is a well known left wing argument for a second, I’m going to use a common analogy here in the form of a question. If a person is in debt and needing to pay their mortgage, do they have a right to rob the bank to pay the bank back their loan?

      So because there are people who oppose illegal immigration you are upset that you get counted together with what you admit are illegal aliens violating our sovereignty, but since the situation at the border is a “hoax” anyone who talks about illegal aliens being a problem is a bigot(aka racist). I believe that sums up your position succinctly.

      So there we have not one, but two predominant left wing beliefs coming out of you, with you defending them along left wing liberal talking points. You are simply using the liberal lefts tactics of arguing, what I call the Three D’s. Deny/Dismiss, Distract, Destroy.

      Now, you are hoping that enough people will pay attention when you try to shout “racist” that it will destroy or silence your opponent. You’re newest one is attempting to call me a troll. What a laugh.. That doesn’t work on me. Because I look at every single detail in what you write and compare it to your actions, I am able to dissect and analyze everything you have said and point out every single lie, falsification, where you try to backtrack or coverup.

      You chose the wrong person to try to argue with on this. That leaves you with three options. 1. You may choose to stop responding and hope this all goes away and gets forgotten eventually. 2. You can continue to try and “Kill the messenger” while failing each time until you have zero credibility and have to switch to a new name. 3. You can own up to your mistake and issue an apology to those you tried to blatantly lump in with racists, at which point civil conversation may resume and you no longer need to be worried about being pointed out as a retard.

      The choice is yours, so keep digging or put down the shovel. =)

      1. Also, in addition to the above statement, I’d like to provide everyone with a good example of the differences between certain people coming to our country in the “Civics” lesson currently being given to @V.

        https://www.ammoland.com/2019/05/students-walk-out-of-vigil-for-fallen-student-over-anti-gun-message/#axzz5pLyL9q2p

        This is a story, here at ammoland from the beginning of the month, about a student at the Colorado STEM school named Kendrick Castillo. Castillo comes from a Family of latin heritage. I do not know if he was a first or second generation indigenous American, or if he was an immigrant himself coming here with family while young. I don’t know. What I do know is that he is exactly the kind of individual we want to come here legally.

        Contrast that with one of the perpetrators of that shooting. The media chose not to cover it in depth since that individual happens to be not just a transgender individual, but the child of an abusive and violent illegal alien who if I remember right had already been deported multiple times. Two of the groups the left favors combined in one individual, committing violence against a good young man and costing him his life. Castillo deserves the title of hero for his actions that day, in a situation the media quickly silenced because it did not fit their narrative.

        Remember Kendrick Castillo when you read @V’s comments, and his attempts to dismiss the problems at our southern border as a “hoax”.

        1. Y’all need to go over to theeconomiccollapseblog.com and take on So Cal Beach Dude. He dominates the thread and likes discussions like this. Jaebo

          1. @Jaebo

            I don’t “take on” anyone except for a few select reasons.
            1. Clear demonstration of Hypocrisy(This is what got me started on @V)
            2. Willfully lying or continued propagation of a lie after presentation of evidence has been given.
            3. Clear violations of the Constitution, or dishonoring Military service for personal gain.

            That’s pretty much it.

      2. @The Revelator
        “The Revelator”? – surely you are going to be revealing something. Eventually.

        I find the terms “left winger” and “leftist” incoherent with people who support the 2 amendment without restrictions.

        I read all your comments carefully before responding to them. You on the other hand reacted to my post in an uncivilized way. Hence lacking civics. Being versed in history does not make you a civil person to debate with. Also, you clearly demonstrate your arrogance through the likes of statements like this: “my record here on that front is five years long and a lot more learned than yourself”.

        I chose not to reply to EAM, or mention him/her in my comment because my statements are valid for all who would read it. There was no confusion generated by my comment. All very clear language.

        The “hoax” I refer to, is in reference to the incorrect idea that is propagated whereby the U.S is somehow under military attack by those who would seek to enter illegally into the country through the southern border. EAM’s statement was leading in that sense: the “Muslim and Latino hoards” are going to arm themselves as a result of the outcome of this case and put the lives of citizens at risk. You were somehow threatened by my statement which is clear from the words you used in your reply. If you are passionate about a particular position, put your case forward. We will have a civil discussion.

        Am I concerned that even just a few of those illegally entering the country could go on to harm citizens? Yes. Which is why I am advocating for a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and overturning of all unconstitutional gun control laws.

        “What you did however was attempt to lump all in with a generalized accusation.” – I did no such thing. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, don’t go calling people names so you can get attention.

        “a false sense of superiority” – this is what you did! Again, arrogance.

        I’ll put it in plain English for YOU: just as you have a right to call me names and be arrogant, I have a right to say and post what I want! And not you or anyone else is going to prevent that from happening, lest they be censoring moderators unhappy with my position. But for you, Sir, I will not keep quiet. Understand?

        “The majority of us do support and want legal immigration.” – good. It would seem we have some common ground.

        “Now lets cover the lies you are still trying to defend.” – no lies were stated. My comment was truthful and factual. If you disagree, respond with facts, like a civilized person would do.

        “DO YOU DENY THAT THERE ARE MULTITUDES, LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE VIOLATING THE LAWS OF OUR NATION AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER? Simple yes or no.” – no. No need to shout.

        “That is what you are calling a hoax.” – wrong. See above for explanation and context. If you still don’t understand (since it seems you haven’t right from the get go), I am happy to continue the discussion.

        “While the term Horde is a derogatory synonym of the word multitude, it is accurate and used in the correct context to the situation even if EAM doesn’t have access to a dictionary.” – wrong. The negative connotation of the word “horde” implies a multitude of people with ill intentions. The vast majority of those crossing illegally are doing so to search for a better place to live their lives. The vast majority is looking to find menial jobs in order to put food on the table.

        “and you are now tripling down on what you said” – how’s this response for quadrupling down on what I said.

        “So what exactly is it you are defending here?” – see my first post for what I am trying to defend.

        “Well, since I flat out pointed out you were trying to cry “Racism!” as a means to silence dissent you were unable to use that word, so you instead chose to use bigotry in its place. “ – I did no such thing. Although some may find EAM’s comment racist, he/she is free to say what he/she wants. In my follow-up response to you, my words were: “inciting bigotry”. That is not “crying racism”. In no way was I trying to silence dissent. I welcome discussion, as you can see from my patience in replying to you.

        “Again, for those following along, here is V’s original quote as seen above.” – your arrogance blinds you. I sincerely doubt that many people are reading this. For those that are, please, do join the discussion. Let’s hear it from all those that feel offended by my comment and replies.

        “So there you are in a single, separate line stating that anyone who doesn’t view the hundreds of thousands of illegals violating our national sovereignty at the border as a hoax, then they are guilty of lumping Legal immigrants with a permanent residency status together with them(illegals).” – where to begin on this one. First: see my explanation of “hoax” above. Second, you are projecting incorrect meaning into my statement. So not only would you have me silenced, but you also mean to distort my statements, just as you did in your first reply to my comment. But I will try to explain it to you: There are people (EAM may or may not be one of these) who are flat out against all immigration. Who see immigrants as a threat. My statement tells those people that legal permanent residents and legal immigrants are not breaking the law in their goal of working and living in the U.S., and that this case overturns a wrongful law that was prohibiting legal permanent residents from applying for a CCW permit. My statement is making sure that readers would not be mislead into thinking that legal permanent residents don’t have rights afforded under the Constitution.

        “Remember how I stated my reason for criticizing you was that you contradict yourself in your statements?” – again arrogance in the use of the word “remember”, but the only one who is contradicted is yourself.

        “it isn’t being taken out of context…” – the use of ellipsis implies that you don’t have arguments for your case. I appreciate your lengthy response – don’t diminish it by leaving things open for interpretation.

        “legal permanent resident non citizens” – and in the next sentence you use redundancy. I assume you are trying to prove a point: legal residents are not citizens. So true Sir! Citizens should absolutely value their status.

        “Ah, I love it when they argue.” – isn’t is great! Were that all lands on this planet had that freedom.

        “that makes it ok in your book.” – I never said this. Again, twisting my words to make your point.

        “If a person is in debt and needing to pay their mortgage, do they have a right to rob the bank to pay the bank back their loan? “ – I decline to answer the question. You want to talk immigration, lets. But it’s starting to feel like what you really want is attention.

        “I believe that sums up your position succinctly.” – wrong. You completely distort the meaning of my words.

        “So there we have not one, but two predominant left wing beliefs coming out of you, with you defending them along left wing liberal talking points. You are simply using the liberal lefts tactics of arguing, what I call the Three D’s. Deny/Dismiss, Distract, Destroy.” – thank you for the lesson on the three D’s. It is but your perception. If you chose instead to have civil discussions with those on the left, perhaps this country wouldn’t be in the situation that it is in. Instead you choose derogatory name calling and twisting of meaning to push your own agenda.

        “You’re newest one is attempting to call me a troll” – “In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll’s amusement or a specific gain.” – Wikipedia. I think the shoes fits absolutely. And it’s “your”, not “you’re”.

        “You chose the wrong person to try to argue with on this.” – enough arrogance already.

        “That leaves you with three options.” – you, Sir, do not dictate options to me.

        ““Kill the messenger”” – oh good grief.

        “You can own up to your mistake and issue an apology to those you tried to blatantly lump in with racists, at which point civil conversation may resume and you no longer need to be worried about being pointed out as a retard.” – I believe you have clearly “revealed” your true character time and time again. You are incapable of civil conversation.

        1. @V

          I’m going to respond in order. I read your comment Carefully, twice through. Now please pay attention, cross reference with your comment, and answer the question I’m going to put at the end. Each of your paragraphs will be handled in order and correspond with the individual numbered quotes I provide from them. I’m not going to let you wiggle out of this, sorry.
          For Reference, all definitions given come from a collegiate dictionary.

          1. “I find the terms “left winger” and “leftist” incoherent with people who support the 2 amendment without restrictions.”

          That is your opinion, not fact. Again, I directed you to Greg Camp who is an author here and an avowed leftist. I have questioned him at times on how full his “without restriction stance” is. You are more than welcome to type his name into the search on Ammoland and peruse his articles to verify what I am saying regarding him. Actions not Words. Quite frankly, what you say does not matter. What does matter is whether or not your actions match your words. If you claim not to be coming here with a leftist perspective because you support the 2nd amendment as written, then using left wing arguments and language as you have on the issue of immigration. We already have a lot of left wing gun control supporters here who try to tell us because they own a handgun they care about the second amendment while their actions are trying to destroy it. I just called you out for trying to walk on both sides and attempting to deny it after the fact.

          1. @V

            2. “You on the other hand reacted to my post in an uncivilized way. Hence lacking civics”

            Civics ~ the study of the rights and duties of citizenship.
            Civility ~formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech.
            For your information, I am confrontational for a reason. Number one, it triggers a mental reflex in those it is intentionally directed at. This is a little different from trolling, “Trolls” since you chose to put up a wikipedia definition and part of it was correct. Troll as a Verb is used in fishing, referring to the act of dragging a lure along behind to overcome a lack of localized fish by bringing your lure to the fish. So, putting up a comment without a specified purpose or target, using “inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion” such as an accusation perhaps? Maybe accusing everyone of the act of lumping in Legal permanent residents with illegal aliens when they had not? Wow, there is no way that would at all be considered trolling, unless of course you are using the definition you provided.

            What I do is engage directly, confrontationaly, using psychology against the person causing the problem. I fully admit that it is not a nice tactic, it is not polite, and it is particularly unfair to the target since my goal is not to silence them it is to keep them responding no matter how much time it takes me. The more they respond the more damage they do to their own argument over time. The human brain response is to naturaly “Chest up”, going into a defensive state to rationalize actions or statements. It is brutally effective, so yes I fully admit to not being civil over this. I’ll explain why at the end.

        2. Y’all need to go over to theeconomiccollapseblog.com and take on So Cal Beach Dude. He dominates the thread and likes discussions like this. Jaebo

          1. @Jaebo

            Considering my reply had 35 points in total to respond, it appears @V has chosen option number 1. too bad not all of them posted.

    2. Leasing a right enshrined in Bill of Rights is unlawful. The right to bear arms is protected by 2A and 2A is license and registration. Selling rights to self defense is treason.
      Remember this for the upcoming war.

    3. I noticed that the law firm that represented the client was from the liberal sanctuary city of San Francisco. Let’s see if they will do the same for a conservative constitutional AMERICAN citizen!

    4. Many LEGAL, LAW ABIDING permanent residents are going through the process of applying for citizenship. It is NOT an EASY process, so citizens should absolutely value their status. Permanent residents should NOT be at the mercy of criminals and tyrannical government until their citizenship is granted.

      STOP grouping all LEGAL immigrants who have achieved permanent resident status into the “muslim and latino hoards” hoax.

      This lawsuit merely strikes down another dumb law that would PREVENT legal permanent residents from APPLYING for CCW. It says nothing for GUARANTEEING that the CCW will be granted.

      Constitutional Carry in all 50 states!

      1. @V,

        Allow me to amend your comment to “unrestricted Constitutional Carry in all 50 states.” FIFY.

        A friend of mine lives in Oklahoma, and they’ll be allowed to CC when their new law takes effect later this year. Unfortunately, different states have different versions of CC law. For example, I live in California (born here, raised here, still fighting behind enemy lines here to support the 2A), and if I visit Kansas as a non-resident I can CC without a permit, per the explanation I read on their law. However, if I visit Idaho or South Dakota I cannot CC, but I can still open carry. Unfortunately, Oklahoma requires non-residents to obey the laws of their home state(!), and since I can’t carry under any circumstances in Los Angeles County (LA never grants CCWs, and CA denies open carry entirely), I cannot carry at all even in the supposedly “Free America” state of Oklahoma. Makes no sense.

        Law-abiding citizens of the U.S.A. should be able to freely exercise their clear natural right – enumerated in the 2A – across the entire country. Why are we allowing this freedom in only some locations, but completely restricting it in others?

        1. @Guesty Mcguesterson

          How about we just enforce the Constitution instead? Constitutional Carry under that is simply “Keep and Bare”.

          That is what you were trying to say, and is correct. Just shortening it for a more manageable form.

          What V was doing was trying to cause confusion. We as conservatives and Constitutionalists do support Legal Immigration, always have. What we don’t support is illegal entry and violation of our sovereignty. That is where he is trying to muddy the waters, and quite frankly is a retard for doing so. Notice his use of the word hoax. It’s mixed in nicely with a lot of other commentary meant to sound good but that one little tip off lets you know his mind is off in toonsville, otherwise why is he shouting here?

          1. It is unfortunate that you see confusion when I was merely trying to clear up a previous comment that you most likely didn’t take the time to read.

            It is your type of mentality though, that makes other people think that all immigrants are here to cause harm and attack the sovereignty of the U.S. Am I concerned that among those illegally entering the U.S. there will be those that look to cause harm to others? Absolutely. Am I angry that many will come into this country illegally after people like myself are doing so legally? You bet.

            The use of the word “hoax” is exactly what is meant: there is no such thing as “muslim and latino hoards” (particularly when EAM below supposedly meant “horde”). Unless you are of Native American descent, you Sir, are here because sometime in your family’s past someone immigrated to this country. Try not to forget that. Especially when you call someone a retard.

            As for my state of mind, I certainly doubt that you are equipped to diagnose it. I would say that your use of the pronoun “we” when classifying yourself as a Conservative and Constitutionalist, would suggest that you are incapable of putting forth your own opinion on matters of immigration, let alone defend the 2nd Amendment. It is unfortunate that that fight has to be had with gun control advocates and ill informed citizens like yourself.

            Oh, and a few capitalized words do not imply shouting. They merely convey effect of importance of the statement being made, which, if you would care to see past your judgmental ways, would understand that are made to stress that a wrongful law was overturned permitting legal immigrants to apply for CCW. The distinction needs to be made CLEAR that legal immigrants must NOT be grouped with illegal immigrants. I don’t expect you to understand the difference, but I could also not sit idly by while you resort to name calling and incorrect interpretation of my comment.

            1. @V

              No, what you said you said quite clearly.

              “STOP grouping all LEGAL immigrants who have achieved permanent resident status into the “muslim and latino hoards” hoax.”

              Now what was my response? That real Conservatives and Constitutionalists(two separate groups) do not group Legal immigrants with illegal aliens. Furthermore, the fact that we have waves of people trying to enter illegally or under false pretenses. As of March 2019 it was reported that ICE captured and released approximately 107,000 ILLEGAL immigrants since the beginning of the year. Keep in mind, many historical armies barely reached one quarter of that amount for even the largest nations. You can find examples of some larger, such as Persia. Rome at its height also fielded upwards of a quarter of a million Legionnaires. Suffice it to say, 107,000 already qualifies as a horde. Horde in its simplest forms just means “multitude.” Even better, in your response you double down on using the word “Hoax” when talking about this. Oh, but you did try to water that down claiming how upset you are about illegal immigration. That’s no different than Obama saying gun owners should vote for him because he loves that the 2nd amendment is about hunting. (And you are whining about me calling you a retard? Way to contradict yourself there poindexter)

              No it must be pointed out again, you are trying to create a false accusation of us lumping in legal immigrants with illegal aliens. Or perhaps you simply don’t understand the difference, maybe not having fully read my comment when I specifically stated real Conservatives and Constitutionalists don’t do that. There you go, that’s three times it has been repeated for you. Further, you show you are trying to make that false accusation by pointing at historical Immigration, if which is the case are you then calling Legal immigration to America after its founding illegal since we are not aboriginal? That would be antithetical to your original assertion that there are Legal immigrants here.

              So, you either misspoke regarding the wording you used, or you are exactly as what you showed yourself to be and what I called you. So which is it? Were you wrong about the way you worded your original comment, or are you the phony I called you out as based on your actions?

              Lies you’ve told so far
              1. “It’s a hoax”- get a dictionary. it reads “a large group of people.”
              2. “All yall better stop lumping Legals with illegals”- simply put I’ve given the answer three times. Want to go for four and up to solidify that “R” on your forehead?

            2. @Everyone

              It will be interesting to see if V continues to contradict his own statements. Simply put his actions and words don’t line up, which is why he is making generalized claims.

              It’s a left wing tactic which can be summed up as “if you argue with me, you are lumping all immigrants together and you are a racist”

              Wait for the fireworks and enjoy. =)

            3. @The Revelator

              If you would have taken the time to read all the comments to this article you would see that my comment is in response to EAM stating that this case is about allowing illegal immigrants access to 2A rights. I chose to post my comment at the top of the hierarchy in order to let more people become aware that this case is a win for gun rights, in that it overturns an unjust law for legal permanent residents.

              You Sir, chose to jump in and make an incorrect statement about how I was causing confusion, when in fact I did the opposite. Of course, not being equipped with eloquence or civics, you retort to name calling, and continue to do so. But that’s ok, it is your right to do so, even if you miss the point completely.

              In EAM’s comment, the word “horde” (which was incorrectly spelt) was used to imply a very large number of people that are attacking the sovereignty of the U.S. and inciting bigotry of Muslims and Latinos. The U.S is a country that is envied the world over by many people. Those that can escape dire conditions in the adjacent geographical regions that are easily covered by land, will do so. No wall or closed mentality such as yours will prevent that.

              Might I suggest that you avoid further trolling by reading EAM’s comment first, then reread my comment and your responses to me? That might be a better use of your time than trying to push your closed and bigoted mindset.

              P.S.: How many “left-wingers” have you seen lately that are passionate about the 2nd Amendment?

            4. @V

              I’ll answer your last question first. We get quite a few left wingers who come here in support of the second amendment. Its nothing special. Heck, ammoland even has an acknowledged author who openly admits to it. Greg Camp. Now most do suffer from a case of hypocrisy, which I do call them out on. The last and most notable was a boy named “Green watch Dog.”

              Had you taken the time to read my comment, then you would have noticed that I did not dispute there are people who try to bring race and bigotry here. I have a nice documented history of opposing them. Of course, if you wanted to reply to EAM, you could have taken the time to reference him in your comment. So are you admitting you made a mistake in not doing so? And before you question the civics abilities of others, my record here on that front is five years long and a lot more learned than yourself. If you would like me to provide examples I would be more than happy to do so as on several occasions I have had to explain the history of citizenship and the founders views on Blackstone as opposed to Vattel.

              What you did however was attempt to lump all in with a generalized accusation. While we do have bad actors who show up here, those of us who are true constitutionalists here do make an effort to call them out and expose them on our own without blatantly labeling all under the same infraction. Since you have failed to understand this while you were so busy trying to purport yourself with a false sense of superiority, I’ll put this in absolute plain English for you. Stop accusing all here as being guilty. Understand? The majority of us do support and want legal immigration.

              Now lets cover the lies you are still trying to defend.

              1. “Hoax”
              Lets take a quick look at the language you used here since you chose not to answer some of the information presented to you by attempting to act as though you didn’t see it.

              “In EAM’s comment, the word “horde” (which was incorrectly spelt) was used to imply a very large number of people that are attacking the sovereignty of the U.S.”

              Those are your words. Now, regardless of whether or not EAM is an idiot, bigot, or whatever else you want to call him, we currently have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions who are ignoring the laws of this nation, the Sovereign laws which lay out how immigration, legal residency, and citizenship are supposed to be conducted. I’m going to ask you straight out here and expect an answer, do not dodge this a second time. DO YOU DENY THAT THERE ARE MULTITUDES, LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE VIOLATING THE LAWS OF OUR NATION AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER? Simple yes or no.

              That is what you are calling a hoax. While the term Horde is a derogatory synonym of the word multitude, it is accurate and used in the correct context to the situation even if EAM doesn’t have access to a dictionary. Now, since you are trying to distract from the fact that you tried to label everyone here who disagrees with you as lumping illegal and legal immigrants together(heck I even gave you a chance to admit to not having worded that correctly, and you are now tripling down on what you said), you granted me this little gem…

              “the word “horde” (which was incorrectly spelt) was used to imply a very large number of people that are attacking the sovereignty of the U.S. and inciting bigotry of Muslims and Latinos.”

              So what exactly is it you are defending here? Well, since I flat out pointed out you were trying to cry “Racism!” as a means to silence dissent you were unable to use that word, so you instead chose to use bigotry in its place. So apparently you do understand how synonyms work like horde and multitude were before, since bigotry is a synonym of prejudice which in the context of race(latinos in this case) is a synonym of racism. So you are admitting to exactly what I said you are doing, crying racism, to which you leveled it at everyone here, the qualifier(that’s the stipulation that distinguishes who the accusation applies to) being whether or not the person agrees with your use of the word “hoax.” Again, for those following along, here is V’s original quote as seen above.

              “STOP grouping all LEGAL immigrants who have achieved permanent resident status into the “muslim and latino hoards” hoax.”

              So there you are in a single, separate line stating that anyone who doesn’t view the hundreds of thousands of illegals violating our national sovereignty at the border as a hoax, then they are guilty of lumping Legal immigrants with a permanent residency status together with them(illegals). Anyone with even a single working eye can see what you are implying there, it isn’t rocket science, it isn’t being taken out of context… That is what you said, your own words. Remember how I stated my reason for criticizing you was that you contradict yourself in your statements? Right there you did, signifying there is a difference between legal permanent resident non citizens and those who are crossing our border illegally. That brings me to my next point, or rather my next direct quote of your own words.

              “Those that can escape dire conditions in the adjacent geographical regions that are easily covered by land, will do so. No wall or closed mentality such as yours will prevent that.”

              Ah, I love it when they argue. So looking at what you just said there, those of us with a closed mentality to those crossing our southern border ILLEGALLY, well how dare we oppose that! Since central America is connected to North America, and since they are illegally crossing for “dire conditions” and violating our laws, that makes it ok in your book. Setting aside the fact that is a well known left wing argument for a second, I’m going to use a common analogy here in the form of a question. If a person is in debt and needing to pay their mortgage, do they have a right to rob the bank to pay the bank back their loan?

              So because there are people who oppose illegal immigration you are upset that you get counted together with what you admit are illegal aliens violating our sovereignty, but since the situation at the border is a “hoax” anyone who talks about illegal aliens being a problem is a bigot(aka racist). I believe that sums up your position succinctly.

              So there we have not one, but two predominant left wing beliefs coming out of you, with you defending them along left wing liberal talking points. You are simply using the liberal lefts tactics of arguing, what I call the Three D’s. Deny/Dismiss, Distract, Destroy.

              Now, you are hoping that enough people will pay attention when you try to shout “racist” that it will destroy or silence your opponent. You’re newest one is attempting to call me a troll. What a laugh.. That doesn’t work on me. Because I look at every single detail in what you write and compare it to your actions, I am able to dissect and analyze everything you have said and point out every single lie, falsification, where you try to backtrack or coverup.

              You chose the wrong person to try to argue with on this. That leaves you with three options. 1. You may choose to stop responding and hope this all goes away and gets forgotten eventually. 2. You can continue to try and “Kill the messenger” while failing each time until you have zero credibility and have to switch to a new name. 3. You can own up to your mistake and issue an apology to those you tried to blatantly lump in with racists, at which point civil conversation may resume and you no longer need to be worried about being pointed out as a retard.

              The choice is yours, so keep digging or put down the shovel. =)

        2. @Guesty McGuesterson: Constitutional Carry is unrestricted carry. Period. No twisted interpretations of a very simply stated 2nd Amendment to the Constitution are to be tolerated (not criticizing you here).

          I agree with you that many states have imposed restrictions on a right that “Shall NOT be infringed”. The Constitution is the Law of the Land, and any restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are unconstitutional. Those that impose said restrictions should be held accountable for the violation. Something that is itching me lately is the lack of accountability that lawmakers enjoy, even after unconstitutional laws are overturned. Why should citizens endure restrictions on their rights (which certainly put innocent lives at risk as a consequence) that are corrected years later with the legal process, yet lawmakers get away with it? Where is the morality in that?

          “Why are we allowing this freedom in only some locations, but completely restricting it in others?” – the individual States are considered “laboratories of democracy”, and the answer to this question is simple: politicians. They will pander to ignorance, feelings of fear and use demagoguery to get elected. The problem is that people have not studied history and are unaware that gun control is the first step to full government control of individual liberties. I.e.: tyranny. The U.S. is the last place on the planet where freedom is a reality, and it is under serious attack.

          Still, I like to think that there is hope. Even in California. Benitez for SCOTUS! Check out Charles Nichols’ California Open Carry fight. On hold until New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York is heard in the SCOTUS and likely until Young vs Hawaii gets through too.

          Now about that gun roster.

      2. @V, The process was made a lot easier under the Clinton and Soetoro administrations. Did you know? One of the questions is ” How many stripes are on the American flag.” (As if that were an important aspect of American civics.)

        Aliens that are Lawfully Admitted for Permanent Residence (properly referred to as LAPRs) do have the Right to purchase, carry, sell, collect etc firearms. I am sure that you were aware.

        1. “The process was made a lot easier under the Clinton and Soetoro administrations. Did you know?” – I did not. But, with the lengthy waiting period to get permanent resident status, and then having to wait 5 more years before being permitted to apply for citizenship, I can’t say I’m upset that the test to pass the application has been made more accessible. Someone applying for citizenship understands that the advantage is to be able to voice their position through voting. And get an American passport.

          “Aliens that are Lawfully Admitted for Permanent Residence (properly referred to as LAPRs) do have the Right to purchase, carry, sell, collect etc firearms. I am sure that you were aware.” – I am. However, this case is important in the sense that it overturns a wrongful law that prohibited LAPRs from applying for a CCW permit, in a state that already has a host of unconstitutional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

    5. California especially needs to review and amend current policy moving forward to a policy admitting the supremacy of the United States constitution and bill of rights granting the right to own and carry a firearm.

      1. Will people PLEASE stop saying things like “granting the right?” GOD gives rights. Constitutions RECOGNIZE and are supposed to guarantee those rights.

    6. What about current legal citizens who are routinely denied CCW permits in areas like San Francisco? Why is the non-citizen given this constitutional protection before our citizens are?

      1. This case is not about that issue, which is particular to a defined class of persons; this the case did not contemplate the particularity you stressed. Moreover, now that resident aliens are guaranteed rights, you or anyone else can enter a case for citizens that would gain legitimacy from the result of this case. Good thinking on the part of those who brought and argued this case and those who are contemplating the case I’ve suggested above. Expand your view and you will see the elegance of the presently decided case and its promise for the future.

      2. Riverside COunty, last I checked (recently) was one of the many SHALL ISSUE counties in the mess commonly referred to as California.
        San Bernardino, Inyo, Orange, Kern, Kings, Tulare, Fresno, Humboldt, many of the more rrual counties are shall issue.

        Of course, in Kaliforniastan, the process is expensive, long, insulting, restrictive.. I think its only three handguns you can register to carry, and they must be named and numbered on the card you carry. One of them breaks, you’re down to only two you can lawfully carry until you go do the pwperwork dance at the sheriff’s office., And the restrictions on what guns are “approved” to buy new are insane, and dwindilng away. Buying used is also a deliberately concocted hassle.

        The fun bit is that once one has his Mother May I Card in his home county, he can freely travel throughout the whoe state carrying at will. That means he COULD carry in places where almost NO ONE can get their Card…. I’ve read of incidents where a criminal wiht a gun (they ALWAYS get theirs, no waiting, no paperwork) were VERY surprised to be outgunned in a place where no one but LE and SPESHUL fokes ever carry.

        Let us hope that this case, a Federal level one, helps to set a precedent supporting the right to arms for legal residents elsewhere in the nation.

      3. a non-citizen is not GIVEN this right, any more than full citizens are.

        We ALL have the right by our birth.

        Some jurisdictions continue to illegally DENY that right, in areas like San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda, to name a few I am aware of.

        This case, unfortunately, can only deal with the specific situation faced by the plaintiff, but it DOES establish in California the principle that legal residents cannot be denied the use of arms solely on the basis they are not yet full citizens.

        We tried in the Peruto case which SCOTUS declined to take up, to remove the unlawful restrictions on ALL residents of San Diego County to carry weapons in public.

        My advice to anyone unable to get their Mother May I Card because they live in SHold counties like SF, LA, SD, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda, is to shift their residence to a different county. In some cases, the next one over will issue where their own will not.
        Or, apply, get denied, then get with 2AF, CalGuns, etc, and launch a new Peruta case….. the present SCOTUS may be more disposed to take up such a case on Cert than the one that refused Peruta.

        Or, do as some five millions already have, simply perform a CalExit.

        1. @Tionico: “Or, apply, get denied, then get with 2AF, CalGuns, etc, and launch a new Peruta case….. the present SCOTUS may be more disposed to take up such a case on Cert than the one that refused Peruta.” – agreed. If a critical mass of people did this, it would have weight for sure.

          “Or, do as some five millions already have, simply perform a CalExit.” – unfortunately, that will not be possible or desirable for all of us. And I bet that the majority of those 5 million left not because for the 2A violations by the state, but rather for the outrageous taxation and cost of living. And they are taking their gun control views to other States that are already suffering as a result: TX, CO, OR, WA, etc.

    7. I’m sorry, but I disagree with the premise and outcome of tbis case. I am a very firm believer in the right to bear arms and concealed/open carry. I own all sorts of pistols and long guns myself, and carry as often as is practical.

      However, this is a constitutiinal right as a CITIZEN of the united states. Non-citizens should not have that right until such time as they legally apply for, and earn, their citizenship. Are we going to let all if these muslim and latino hoards entering our country easily arm themselves and create lawless enclaves, as some already have?

      1. I was thinking the same thing. Citizenship ought to be the goal of all good honest people who come to this nation looking for opportunity and a better life. There should be advantages to being a citizen vs just a resident alien or temporary worker. To give the 2nd amendment rights to someone not a citizen “cheapens” the great value and exquisite privilege it is for anyone to be a citizen of the United States of America.

        1. Gentlemen, The current immigration act gives LAPRs (Lawfully Admitted for Permanent Residence) nearly all civil Rights of citizens, but not the vote, of course. This statute was the work of a liberal Congress, can be changed when the current Congress takes up the immigration issue. Trump is pushing for an overhaul of the Im. Act, so this might be the opportunity we are looking for.

        2. It is not government that ‘”gives” any of our natural rights to anyone. The right to arms, amongst others, are granted us by the God who made us. Our Constituton merely acknowledges that fact, and tells FedGov to leave those rights alone.

          ANYONE “subject to the jurisdiction of the state in which they reside, and of the United States” is fully able to enjoy all the rights, priviledges, immunuties enumerated in the Constitution, cknowledged and clarified by the 14th Article of Ammendment. This court case merely established, beyond all doubt, that these rights cannot be removed simply on the basis of one’s not yet being a citizen. The right to arms, and the others of the people are OF THE PEOPLE, not OF THE CITIZENS.

          1. Bingo.

            To assert that only citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights is absurd. It’s laughable on its face.

            1. @Jdberger, I don’t think anyone asserted that only citizen are protected by the Bill of Rights, but aliens in the U.S. do not have the full panorama of Civil Rights that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. For example: voting in national elections.
              And aliens in the U.S. have rights that American citizens do not have. A hearing before an Immigration Judge, for example.

          2. Double bingo.

            Article 3, Section 1 of the California Constitution consists of only a single sentence:

            “The State of California is an inseparable part of
            the United States of America, and the United States
            Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”

            I’m not really sure how the Dems in Sacramento have been able to get away with completely disregarding and disobeying not only the Federal Constitution and its 2A, but our own state constitution which very clearly defers to the first document as the overriding authority. Why this hasn’t been a slam-dunk argument in Federal Court against CA is beyond me.

      2. The right to bear arms is not a citizen’s right, it is the right of all persons which the US respects. All persons who are legally in the US are protected by the Second Amendment. There is in fact a large group of legal resident aliens in the US who are not part of a horde of invading latinos and Muslims. Also there are a large number of latino and Muslim citizens that might interpret your comments as bigoted and a threat to their rights as citizens. I am a Christian and as a latino I don’t think a shilpit cull of an ignoramus who doesn’t know the difference between horde and hoard is capable of being much of a threat to anything.

        1. Well said.

          I don’t agree with what @EAM is saying, but I will fight for his right to say it. We need the 2A for that. It’s no wonder the Founders ordered the Bill of Rights the way they did.

    Leave a Comment 49 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *