In Response to the ruling coming from the Ninth Circuit Court:

 http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/19/10-56971%20web.pdf

I shared this with my son on Facebook and have edited it here:

The Ninth Circuit court did this to avoid open carry. They had to decide which was the more egregious to the lefties - concealed carry, or open carry. Open carry scares them to death - seeing guns in public! When the Second Amendment reads, "the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," which any government school graduate understands to mean both open carry and concealed carry are permissible. This ruling also suggests if anyone (At this point anyone who can pass the California background check San Diego County CCW qualifications.) who applies for a CCW is refused then they have a new suit to make open carry the law because the Ninth Circuit got one thing right - citizens have to be permitted a Constitutionally protected right to carry guns if they so choose freely exercise that right. Thomas do you think California sheriffs are just going to have a blanket policy of handing out CCW? Also I assume this ruling has been stayed and will be put on hold till the Supreme Court makes a ruling?

Thomas Sherer to Jim Sherer yes, totally agree. It was interesting that they do a really deep historical analysis that says that concealed carry became outlawed in the 1800s for social reasons, but open carry was still normal and expected for gentlemen. Now society has changed and people don't want to see guns anymore, but there needs to be some good way for lawful citizens to bear arms outside their homes.
First step is that San Diego will almost certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. Best case scenario is the court doesn't take the case... But that is unlikely given the split that exists among Federal Courts of Appeal. Assuming the Supreme Court goes our way which is not inconceivable given recent decisions like Heller and McDonald, "shall issue" will become the law of the land and anyone who is of good moral character can get a ccw. 2-3 years.

Jim Sherer "good moral character" is this going to be the same way they skirted obscenity laws - can't define it but I know it when I see it? Better yet skirt abortion restrictions - to save the life of the mother? So they leave it up to states to define good moral character and eventually there are several suits and splits by the lower courts as to "good moral character" and then we have 5 justices of dubious character defining for the rest of us what is "good moral character." If they were smart they would out and out fall back on the original wording of the constitution "shall not be infringed." Probably somewhere in their 200 page ruling someone would be smart to place the words.. only restriction will be people with federal felony convictions, or felony convictions, or felony convictions while using a firearm. Got to throw someone under the bus to satisfy the lefty's. 

Here is what I thought would happen:
Jim Sherer The cities always appeal and waste gobs of taxpayers money on an already determined outcome - they are going to be slapped down. Why not instead, save the money, spend it on the children and write a law which allows citizens to conceal carry based on the CCW laws of states which do permit CCW? Naw, F**k the children we can't allow GUNS, ahhhhh we'd become like TEXAS [or, worse Wyoming havens for all which is Redneck and bigoted]!- added later for emphasis. 

Here is what really happened:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/21/san-diego-wont-appeal-9th-circuit-on-concealed-car/
 

Hey Thomas what about this: Well I did not expect this. One of the smartest moves by a progressive ever. Not willing to gamble on how the Supreme Court was going to rule on those pesky four words, which the sheriff claims, I would assume he has sworn to uphold, can be overlooked "...shall not be infringed." Better to back down than become the sheriff remembered forever for claiming ..."shall not be infringed." meant, a background check, paying fees, interview and a gun course. Which someone in the article is quoted as saying, "...all other lawful qualifications." This is so rich and ironic; a case ruled by the Ninth Circuit court over the fact a CCW was denied to a citizen when others citizens were receiving CCWs. I can see the next case developing already - those who want a CCW but are denied because of the prohibitive cost of a CCW, or how about a deaf person failing the interview, or how about a citizen who is an introvert who is to nervous, or how about a citizen who speaks one of the 32 other languages recognized by California bureaucracy denied an interpreter for the interview (I am thinking of the Korean business men in South Los Angels during the Rodney King riots.); all perpetrated by San Diego county government. The final word is all adults understand interviews are always objective, truthful events leading to the best outcome; right? 

What I hope happens is the Sheriffs office is so inundated by citizens requesting CCW the sheriffs office's resources are prohibitively used up by this endeavor to meet "...all other lawful qualifications." taking deputies of the street leading to an outcry by other citizens who actually could use them for real crime prevention instead of this TSA style smoke and mirrors crime prevention.

 When people tell you what happens in California is going to spread to other states remember this case.

I was reading this article about the terror attack in San Jose California against... a power sub-station. A place where electricity comes in and through the use of transformers is boosted to a normal operating voltage to be transported along high voltage wires to where it is needed - the implication, from the opinion piece, is to Silicon Valley.

The American Spectator - Low Tech Terror on the Grid
http://spectator.org/articles/57742/low-tech-terror-grid

Here are my comments posted on The American Spectator as to why this opinion piece has it wrong:


Via a simple Google search, "firearms which shoot 7.62X39": From wiki.answers.com - "Several firearms. The first was the Simonov Carbine Semiautomatic (SKS). The best known is probably the AK47 (Kalashnikov) However, there are many other weapons chambered for this cartridge now. One Australian company is making bolt action lee-Enfield rifles in 7.62x39. The Czech marketing company CZ offers a bolt action hunting rifle in 7.62x39 (in term of energy produced, it's comparable to a .30-30 round). Ruger manufactures the Mini 30, which is a 7.62x39 variant of the Mini 14. 7.62x39 versions of civilian variants of the AR-15 and Daewoo K2 rifle have been manufactured, as well. Other military weapons aside from the Kalashnikov rifles (and which are often mistaken for AK type rifles) include the Chinese Type 68, Chinese Type 81, and Czech Vz.58, and there is a 7.62x39 variant of the Israeli Galil ACE in product."

So without eye witness accounts no one knows whether it was an AK47 or one of the above weapons, but if you want to make it a terrorist attack always best to claim the weapon of choice for terrorists - an AK47. But wait there is more. If someone wanted to hit the target areas from forty to sixty yards they would probably not use an AK47 it is not the choice of marksmen, especially when the evidence is: out of 120 rounds 110 hit their mark. These are not the results of an AK47 at the above distance, but more likely a hunting rifle or an AR - with a night scope. We are not told how far off the target the 10 rounds were - I assume it means they did not puncture any cooling fins/heat exchange but probably hit very nearby or in the structure around the cooling fins/heat exchange

So let me speculate as to why this is probably not a terrorist attack. If we assume this was a terrorist attack why shoot so many shots? Why from such a distance? I assume the distance was to expedite a getaway and to stay out of sight of the transfer station. But wouldn’t terrorists just disguise themselves and walk right up to the fence and fire, or cut through the fence, plant explosives, escape and detonate the explosives from a distance – like as they were driving away. Why not use larger higher caliper weapons to punch bigger holes, to drain the coolant oil faster and actually bring down the grid? Is this not the terrorist’s greatest allure and power to inflict so much damage quickly as to terrorize the population? But the transfer station did not go down and there was time to divert the power around the transfer station. More importantly they did not do the more spectacular, more terrorizing and clearly public statement of most terrorists and psychopaths - big explosions, noise and lots of confusion; why not shoot directly into the transformers causing explosions (Stated in the article) and immediate catastrophic failure to Silicon Valley and presumably the failure of some good size server farms not only plunging Silicon Valley into darkness but killing - maybe sixty percent to two-thirds of the internet traffic. No instead the attack was kept under wraps and only lately has been revealed long after the fact. Not the behavior of terrorists,but of extortionists.

This I believe was industrial sabotage/espionage by people within the power community, who knew how to bring down the power substation, but not catastrophically; who wanted to use the vulnerability of the transfer station to publicize the lack of hardening of the electrical grid. These are
individuals/persons who have a stake in seeing money and resources allocated towards hardening the electrical grid, or are in the business of providing backup power to, oh I don't know, to any server farm which when power is lost massive amounts of data are lost in a nanosecond; data many of the firms in Silicon Valley have guaranteed are unlosable. By its nature this event, so calculated,was too prepared for terrorism, but for extorting the intended victims into accepting the perpetrators services, protection, offer, analysis, utility cost increase or, legislation it was perfect.