2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: omnigun on June 09, 2016, 06:43:49 AM
-
Dreams dead :-\
As expected, but still disappointing -- Peruta v. San Diego Decision from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc review:
"[W[e conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public."
"The en banc court affirmed the district courts’ judgments and held that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, sought to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but alleged they were denied licenses to do so because they did not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties. Under California law, an applicant for a license must show, among other things, “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. Appellants contend that San Diego and Yolo Counties’ published policies defining good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The en banc court held that the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of “good cause,” however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment. The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered
that question.
The en banc court granted the motion to intervene by the State of California, which sought intervention after the San Diego Sheriff declined to petition for rehearing en banc following the panel’s decision. The en banc court held that under the circumstances presented here, California’s motion to intervene was timely."
-
Only other way now is Trump for President!
-
I guess they didn't want to take a chance on some randomly-selected district court judge ruling otherwise, so they didn't remand it down for a "do over".
Now that we know that concealed carry isn't a protected right (Hawaii "no issue" is perfectly Constitutional... you can "bear arms" in your house... same place you "keep" 'em), I can hardly wait for a million years until they decide if open carry is or isn't protected by the Second Amendment. Is anyone in doubt what that answer will be? [A hugely long string of swear words have been deleted.]
Oh, and a big thanks to the lawyers from NRA, SAF, etc. (Gura and Clement, et. al.) for agreeing in court that open carry can be banned or regulated to the de facto point of a ban and derailing the open carry cases (see Charles Nichols website).
-
We are still alive. In both Young and Baker we asked to carry either concealed or openly
-
Baker was based on this case standing so since it is killed off we are also. Let's face it we all know if we won they will still block it. Saying there is no training certificate for this so till we make one up no can do. Or some other BS.
-
We are still alive. In both Young and Baker we asked to carry either concealed or openly
When are you expecting what sort of ruling or movement on those cases?
-
A post from someone on the calguns forum who I believe is a California resident of a county with a de facto "no issue" policy:
I decided about a year ago that I was going to live by the motto "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". The ruling is a disappointment, as expected, but it won't change my daily routine.
-
When are you expecting what sort of ruling or movement on those cases?
A few weeks I am going to file a brief in Young in the next few days to show the difference between the two.
-
If you want your rights to armed self defense, you better vote for people that will protect those rights. These are the people who appoint these judges.
If you don't vote for 2A politicians, or you don't vote at all, you make this happen. Get in the fight. Get active. Do something. Sitting around waiting does nothing to protect your freedom.
REMEMBER THAT.
-
Reading the opinion, there's about 8 pages referring to English law.... fucking amazing.
-
Credit to: yme2
Ninth District in San Francisco the court of Nuts and Fruits where illegals get sanctuary and citizens get screwed.
-
Sad but I'm not surprised, it is the 9CA after all. Considering the 4-4 split on the Supreme Court, requesting cert won't do any more harm than this ruling has already done. Might as well as go for broke, because that is the ONLY way we here in Hawaii will EVER get shall issue concealed carry. Our Democratic super majority legislature will ensure that any "shall-issue" legislation absent a court ruling is dead on arrival.
-
Reading the opinion, there's about 8 pages referring to English law.... fucking amazing.
Not just English law, but 300, 400, and 500 year old English law. I don't see them quoting any of that stuff when they rule for gay marriage and "rights" for transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice. Go figure. It's almost as if they're cherry-picking when to use what where. You know, in order to uphold their oath to defend and protect the Constitution. :crazy:
-
When we will see a Hawaii county chief of police ever write a letter like this one from Fresno County sheriff Margaret Mims?
(http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb142/damian1995/Yrs3opN.png)
I'm sticking with my estimate of one million years.
-
Why is it closed? Can't it be taken to the supreme court?
-
Why is it closed? Can't it be taken to the supreme court?
Unless president elect appoints some judges that will actually uphold the constitution, get ready to surrender your firearms.
-
Why is it closed? Can't it be taken to the supreme court?
It can but the problem is SCOTUS is 4-4 right now, so it will just get sent back to the lower courts decision.
-
Unless president elect appoints some judges that will actually uphold the constitution, get ready to surrender your firearms.
I think you mean get ready to use your firearms
-
What impact does this ruling have on pro gun states within the 9th circuit? Arizona, Alaska, Guam, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Washington State all fall under the 9th. Thanks!
-
What ruling are you talking about?
-
What a sham...
-
Peruta v. San Diego
This is concerning:
"[W[e conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public."
-
Monster796: I merged your topic in with the main topic so we can hopefully keep this contained in one area.
-
The ruling will NOT affect Arizona, I don't know about the other states thought. I like Arizona :D Link below:
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2016/06/09/federal-court-gun-ruling-wont-affect-arizonans-rights/
-
Result isn't surprising, I don't think anyone here realistically expected it to go our way. Next step would be to pass a Federal CCW reciprocity next year.
-
What impact does this ruling have on pro gun states within the 9th circuit? Arizona, Alaska, Guam, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Washington State all fall under the 9th. Thanks!
It would have no immediate effect, but if in the future (assuming the Peruta ruling stands) any of those state legislatures passed any law that would restrict concealed carry for any reason at all to any degree at all (including a ban), it would be deemed Constitutional. Since CCW is not a "right", it is merely a "privilege", and, as Hillary Clinton puts it, "is subject to [any] commonsense regulation". And by "commonsense regulation" she means banning/prohibiting things (CCW, "assault weapons", "high capacity bullet clips", "semi-auto battlefield weapons of war", etc., etc., etc.).
-
What impact does this ruling have on pro gun states within the 9th circuit? Arizona, Alaska, Guam, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Washington State all fall under the 9th. Thanks!
Yes, no immediate effect, but this encourages the western states, or any state really, to restrict concealed carry in the future. I guess you could say it's not so bad for now because multiple other districts already had similar rulings to the Peruta en banc anyway. At least with the timing of this decision, the Supreme Court petition for certiorari will have to wait for next term, and a ninth justice can be in place by then. But if Clinton appoints the next justice, maybe better to not even file the appeal.
-
Unless president elect appoints some judges that will actually uphold the constitution, get ready to surrender your firearms.
Never.
-
Unless president elect appoints some judges that will actually uphold the constitution, get ready to surrender your firearms.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
It pisses me off that these tyrants are referencing law predateing the bill of rights and constitution. How is this even allowed? How can we impeach these justices?
-
It pisses me off that these tyrants are referencing law predateing the bill of rights and constitution. How is this even allowed? How can we impeach these justices?
It's almost like they are working hard to undo the fiasco of 1776.
-
https://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liberty-Constitutions-Shocking-Government-ebook/dp/B00NRJEAN4
Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government
by Kenneth W. Royce
We had two sets of Founding Fathers: the 1770s set who kicked off the Revolutionary War, and the 1780s set who agitated for a constitutional convention in 1787. Except for a few persons, they were different men -- and with different agenda.
Jefferson did not write the Constitution, but most Americans seem to believe that it was a Jeffersonian product as his Declaration of Independence.
If you've ever wondered how we came to have a leviathan federal government that was supposed to remain small and defined -- Hologram of Liberty will explain what happened.
The 1997 edition is sold out and out of print, and was replaced in June by the 2012 second edition (ISBN 1888766131), which has 100 new pages, and thoroughly covers the 10th Amendment, Firearms Freedom Acts, Obamacare, and comparisons between other constitutions.
That brought his 1997 classic fully up to date, and now you can also enjoy it on Kindle!
For all those who have the out-of-print 1997 edition of Hologram of Liberty, here is a synopsis of what is new in the 2012 edition:
Introduction updated, with a farewell to political book writing
Chapters 1-4 no-very few changes
Chapter 5 commerce clause discussion removed for Chapter 11
Chapter 6 separate U.S. constitution theory removed (too arcane and speculative)
Chapter 7 no changes
Chapter 8 no changes
Chapter 9 several changes/updates as needed
Chapter 10 much added: 16th Amendment and income taxation, freedom money, reining in the public corporations
Chapter 11 full treatment of 10th Amendment vs. the commerce clause (discussed is my then forecasted SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare)lots of treatment of the states' Firearms Freedom Acts
Chapter 12 much detail on the looming Constitutional Convention, history and future
Chapter 13 quotes from many constitutions from Swiss to CSA to Newstates
Chapter 14 which authors have embraced/rejected my coup d'etat theory since 1997?
Chapter 15 And Now, Back to Reality . . . (much added to this 1997 chapter)
Index fully redone, with 1,2,3 pagination (vs. 3/7 and 10/6 workbook style)
-
Result isn't surprising, I don't think anyone here realistically expected it to go our way. Next step would be to pass a Federal CCW reciprocity next year.
Wont matter, The court has ruled the states have a right to regulate concealed carry as it is not a constituional right and as such and federal reciprocity law can just be ignored, Or as with LEOSA the requirements would just be made retarded.
-
I've watched some of Reid's firearms instructional videos, but didn't know he was this passionately "political"... check out his response to today's Peruta decision. I'm sure he is speaking for lots of people... maybe not so many in Hawaii.
https://youtu.be/AolTbt9rHFw
-
What actions can we take at this point? Petition, contacting legislators?
-
What actions can we take at this point? Petition, contacting legislators?
Vote 2A as your issue. Get other gun owners to do the same.
-
From an L A Times story (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-concealed-carry-20160609-snap-story.html):
In a news conference Thursday afternoon, Sheriff Ed Prieto [whose case was litigated simultaneously with Peruta] said he felt “vindicated” after the ruling.
“In Yolo County, I think this is an effective policy and it seems to have been working effectively for years,” he said. He later questioned why people would want to carry a weapon.
“How many times have you been attacked? How many friends do you have who have been attacked? I’m not talking about the exception,” he said. “I have five daughters and I can say I would not honestly give a weapon to any one of my daughters.”
* * * * *
In other words, if you are the "exception" and HAVE been attacked, shut up, because I don't want to talk about you. What he failed to say but also meant was "Even if you have been attacked, a firearm would not have helped, because everyone is as stupid, ignorant, and as untrained as my daughters and the criminal would just have taken the gun away from you and used it against you. Just call 911 and get a big dog."
* * * * *
From California State Attorney Kamala Harris (likely soon to be U.S. Senator)(http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-issues-statement-following-ninth-circuit-ruling):
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today issued the following statement on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Peruta v. County of San Diego:
"The devastating impact gun violence has on our communities underscores the need for common sense gun safety laws. The court's decision is a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws. The ruling ensures that local law enforcement leaders have the tools they need to protect public safety by determining who can carry loaded, concealed weapons in our communities."
* * * * *
I had to fix that one for her too!
"The devastating impact gun violence has on our communities underscores the need for common sense gun safety laws. The court's decision is a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws. The ruling ensures that local law enforcement leaders have the tools they need to protect public safety by determining who LEGALLY can carry loaded, concealed weapons in our communities."
Everyone knows that not one single criminal has ever sought (nor will ever seek) permission from any law enforcement person or agency whether or not they may "carry loaded, concealed weapons in [their] communities". Who are the morons who believe even a single word of the crap spewed by the likes of Harris and Prieto? Oh, that's right, the majority of the people and voters in Hawaii and California... :crazy:
-
there's that "buzz" word..."common sense"
seems that you can't apply "common sense" to the whole gender/bathroom issue but you can to gun rights :crazy:
-
From an L A Times story (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-concealed-carry-20160609-snap-story.html):
In a news conference Thursday afternoon, Sheriff Ed Prieto [whose case was litigated simultaneously with Peruta] said he felt “vindicated” after the ruling.
“In Yolo County, I think this is an effective policy and it seems to have been working effectively for years,” he said. He later questioned why people would want to carry a weapon.
“How many times have you been attacked? How many friends do you have who have been attacked? I’m not talking about the exception,” he said. “I have five daughters and I can say I would not honestly give a weapon to any one of my daughters.”
* * * * *
In other words, if you are the "exception" and HAVE been attacked, shut up, because I don't want to talk about you. What he failed to say but also meant was "Even if you have been attacked, a firearm would not have helped, because everyone is as stupid, ignorant, and as untrained as my daughters and the criminal would just have taken the gun away from you and used it against you. Just call 911 and get a big dog."
* * * * *
From California State Attorney Kamala Harris (likely soon to be U.S. Senator)(http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-issues-statement-following-ninth-circuit-ruling):
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today issued the following statement on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Peruta v. County of San Diego:
"The devastating impact gun violence has on our communities underscores the need for common sense gun safety laws. The court's decision is a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws. The ruling ensures that local law enforcement leaders have the tools they need to protect public safety by determining who can carry loaded, concealed weapons in our communities."
* * * * *
I had to fix that one for her too!
"The devastating impact gun violence has on our communities underscores the need for common sense gun safety laws. The court's decision is a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws. The ruling ensures that local law enforcement leaders have the tools they need to protect public safety by determining who LEGALLY can carry loaded, concealed weapons in our communities."
Everyone knows that not one single criminal has ever sought (nor will ever seek) permission from any law enforcement person or agency whether or not they may "carry loaded, concealed weapons in [their] communities". Who are the morons who believe even a single word of the crap spewed by the likes of Harris and Prieto? Oh, that's right, the majority of the people and voters in Hawaii and California... :crazy:
Well, FU Ed Prieto! That's YOUR choice to not give a firearm to your daughters. That's your right and your children, your choice. Don't impose your personal beliefs on anyone else who may still enjoy the freedoms (what we have left) in this country.
-
So as you guys might know, I live in Arizona now. The tyrannical 9th still covers Arizona and other states and territories thought. What I have below is a link to a letter sent to Senator Paul Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell, from Governor Doug Ducey, requesting Arizona be removed from the jurisdiction of the 9th and added to another court or the court be restructured. It is important to note he requests this because the 9th circuit has a reversal rate of 77%!!!!!! Okay let me say it again %77 reversal rate, almost 4/5th of decisions are reversed. Wow, just wow. Again, I figured to share this here because this demonstrates the bias or incompetence within the 9th circuit.
-
On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7 to 4 that the “there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”
To accomplish this they had to ignore the text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights, misinterpret the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and cite English laws going back to 1299.
As you’ll see, this court’s ruling is not just nonsensical and unconstitutional, but also nonsense.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights says, “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” As used here, the word “bear” is a synonym for “carry.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled as much in Heller: “[a]t the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ means to ‘carry.’”
The justices on the Ninth Circuit can’t overrule the U.S. Supreme Court; it is their job to follow Supreme Court precedents. When questions haven’t been resolved by the high court, it is their job to interpret the language of the Constitution, not to dismiss language so plain any dictionary could have set them straight.
So U.S. citizens clearly have the right to carry firearms in public. This ruling found they don’t have a constitutional right to carry concealed in public. When writing this majority opinion, these 7 justices disregarded the fact that citizens in California also can’t carry a handgun openly in California without a permit. According to Penal Code 26350, the open carrying of both loaded and unloaded handguns in public is illegal.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2016/06/10/why-the-ninth-circuits-concealed-carry-gun-ruling-is-nonsense/#50d2300938b9 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2016/06/10/why-the-ninth-circuits-concealed-carry-gun-ruling-is-nonsense/#50d2300938b9)
-
...the 9th circuit has a reversal rate of 77%!!!!!! Okay let me say it again %77 reversal rate, almost 4/5th of decisions are reversed. Wow, just wow. Again, I figured to share this here because this demonstrates the bias or incompetence within the 9th circuit.
You are probably misinterpreting this figure. It probably means to say that 77% of all 9th circuit decisions that are later reviewed by the Supreme Court are reversed. So 77% is not necessarily a high number, it is to be expected. Remember that the Supreme Court only accepts 1% of all cases that request a review.
The justices on the Ninth Circuit can’t overrule the U.S. Supreme Court; it is their job to follow Supreme Court precedents. When questions haven’t been resolved by the high court, it is their job to interpret the language of the Constitution, not to dismiss language so plain any dictionary could have set them straight.
(I realize your entire post is quoting the article, so I'm just responding to the article, not to you). Technically, the 9th Circuit can do whatever it wants. They are supposed to follow precedent but they diverge all the time when their personal prejudices compel them to. They've even dared to issue rulings explicitly stating that they abolish or modify the 1st or 2nd amendment. Unless the Supreme Court reverses those decisions, they stand.
Sort of similarly, juries can also do anything they want, even though they aren't supposed to. If they want to, they can let a murder that has been recorded on video go unpunished, etc. The term for that is apparently "jury nullification."
-
I am not misrepresenting the figure, that figure is straight from the Governor here in Arizona. Link to PDF:
http://azgovernor.gov/sites/default/files/governor/documents/9thcircuitletter.pdf
-
That governor's description is not clear. Here's a slightly better link:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf
The 9th Circuit is indeed the worst out of all the circuits, it's just that the 80% number doesn't quite mean what you think it does.
-
I am not misrepresenting the figure, that figure is straight from the Governor here in Arizona. Link to PDF:
http://azgovernor.gov/sites/default/files/governor/documents/9thcircuitletter.pdf
I'm not defending the Ninth Circuit in any way, but the "reversal rate" (includes "vacate" decisions) only applies to the cases adjudicated by the Ninth Circuit that are appealed to SCOTUS, and that SCOTUS grants cert to (i.e. agrees to hear arguments and rule on). That number, the percentage of which you cite as reversals, is precisely because those cases granted cert are most likely the ones that the court suspects may have been wrongly decided. As we just saw with Peruta/Richards, the vast majority of the cases the Ninth Circuit votes to take en banc (similar to SCOTUS granting cert) are taken in order to reverse them. Did anyone think chief judge Thomas, after writing the dissent in the original three judge panel Peruta decision, asked for an en banc vote in order to uphold a ruling he vehemently opposed? The other federal circuits have "high" rates of reversal at SCOTUS as well. The rates of reversal for the various circuits range from a couple at around 56% to most in the high 60% to low 70% range. Given those numbers, the Ninth reversal rate is "only" about 10 to 40% greater (range 55.3 to 75%).
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf
None of this has any bearing on the preposterous "reasoning" in Peruta determining that there is no right at all protected by the Second Amendment to bear arms concealed in public... as if they'd find a right protected by the Second Amendment to bear arms openly in public. That ain't gonna happen... unless they say "Yes, there is a Second Amendment protected right to bear arms openly in public but that right is not infringed by requiring licensing with so many hoops and expenses that it is de facto a ban on open carry". I guess we'll have a chance to find out in the fairly near future (that in "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals time", of course) as Nichols finally gets heard.
-
Here is a video of sheriff Mims of Fresno County (shall issue upon declaration of "self protection" as "good cause") giving her take on the Peruta decision. One thing I noted was that she stated that she hoped the department, by next year, would have the complete CCW application process online "so you wouldn't have to come in". Can you get any further away from Hawaii than that? (When I wrote a detailed letter of inquiry to the Hilo PD asking for the specific rationale justifying why various federal and state government agencies mail my passport, birth certificate, social security card, drivers license, etc. and private corporations mail credit cards, etc. but I have to drive all the way to Hilo between 9Am and 3PM Monday through Friday to pick up my annual long gun permit when it is ready, the well-thought-out answer I received was "It's always been done that way". Thanks for that "explanation of the reasoning supporting the policy".) :wtf:I also noted that she used the (now) politically incorrect term "criminal element". Perhaps she's ignoring the Obama Justice Department memo forbidding that word in favor "justice system involved individuals".
https://youtu.be/2yk12KQVRhI (https://youtu.be/2yk12KQVRhI)
-
Here is a video of sheriff Mims of Fresno County (shall issue upon declaration of "self protection" as "good cause") giving her take on the Peruta decision. One thing I noted was that she stated that she hoped the department, by next year, would have the complete CCW application process online "so you wouldn't have to come in". Can you get any further away from Hawaii than that? (When I wrote a detailed letter of inquiry to the Hilo PD asking for the specific rationale justifying why various federal and state government agencies mail my passport, birth certificate, social security card, drivers license, etc. and private corporations mail credit cards, etc. but I have to drive all the way to Hilo between 9Am and 3PM Monday through Friday to pick up my annual long gun permit when it is ready, the well-thought-out answer I received was "It's always been done that way". Thanks for that "explanation of the reasoning supporting the policy".) :wtf:I also noted that she used the (now) politically incorrect term "criminal element". Perhaps she's ignoring the Obama Justice Department memo forbidding that word in favor "justice system involved individuals".
It is a chicken shit answer to you law abiding citizens. The real answer the dept. wants to give is that "We don't want you to own any guns so we make it as hard as possible so that we can deter firearms ownership amongst law abiding citizens."
They forget who the criminals are.
-
Here is a video of sheriff Mims of Fresno County (shall issue upon declaration of "self protection" as "good cause") giving her take on the Peruta decision. One thing I noted was that she stated that she hoped the department, by next year, would have the complete CCW application process online "so you wouldn't have to come in". Can you get any further away from Hawaii than that? (When I wrote a detailed letter of inquiry to the Hilo PD asking for the specific rationale justifying why various federal and state government agencies mail my passport, birth certificate, social security card, drivers license, etc. and private corporations mail credit cards, etc. but I have to drive all the way to Hilo between 9Am and 3PM Monday through Friday to pick up my annual long gun permit when it is ready, the well-thought-out answer I received was "It's always been done that way". Thanks for that "explanation of the reasoning supporting the policy".) :wtf:I also noted that she used the (now) politically incorrect term "criminal element". Perhaps she's ignoring the Obama Justice Department memo forbidding that word in favor "justice system involved individuals".
https://youtu.be/2yk12KQVRhI (https://youtu.be/2yk12KQVRhI)
sad...... Some places in California is actually much better than the state and counties of Hawaii for law abiding citizens. Too bad this State continues to side with CRIMINALS and keep it's population under boot heel. Best thing to do is to VOTE this November, and VOTE for candidates who will restore your RIGHT to armed self defense. Please contact the runners and your current representation, and ask them if they will ACTIVELY pass "SHALL ISSUE" laws in the next legislative session. If they will not, then let them know they WILL NOT GET YOUR VOTE!