Shall Issue

[Doheny]

Before Heller some were saying that it (Heller) had nothing to do with CCW. Post Heller, some say wait until incorporation before pushing for Shall Issue. My question is this: how would incorporation move us towards Shall Issue?

I’m guessing in states that have Shall Issue, it was enacted by the legislature or as a voter initiative. I don’t see our legislature passing Shall Issue and don’t know who would front the money for an initiative, so is Shall Issue really just a pipe dream regardless of Heller and incorporation?

[Wizard99]

Because once we have incorporation then the 2nd amendment as outlined in Heller applies to the states as well as the federal government.

This would mean we could challange the arbitrary way that CCW's are issued to and push for a consistent state wide application of the requirements for a CCW. The options for the state essentially become shall issue or no issue.

[bulgron]

More to the point, once we have incorporation, then we can push for (and will get) recognition that we have the right to carry loaded firearms openly in public. Once that happens, the state is going to cave on shall-issue CCW reform, because they simply aren't going to want to see us unwashed masses running around openly carrying guns. Don't want to scare the weak-kneed liberal elite, y'know.

See, for example, how shall-issue CCW came to Ohio. This is exactly the path that they took.

[bwiese]

Bulgron's got it (as usual ;)

There may be some intervening drama/cases, but I think rational/achievable CCW will be seen as preferable (in terms of not scaring soccer moms and in terms of protracted litigation avoidance) to LOC.

[Doheny]

Anyone want to guess a timeline?

[Theseus]

TWO WEEKS!

[bulgron]

Anyone want to guess a timeline?

We think incorporation can initially come as early as first quarter of next year. By that, I mean we can have a federal court as early as 1Q2009 saying the 2A is incorporated, but that doesn't mean there won't be a follow-on legal battle. That could have to go all the way to SCOTUS before everything is said and done.

After incorporation, who knows? It all depends on how the other side plays the legal game, whether they keep appealing to higher courts, how lower courts rule in various cases, who wins the elections next month and how much opportunity they have to appoint new judges, what happens with the economy, etc.

That said, if I was a betting man, I'd bet that CA will be shall-issue on CCW within ten years. I'm also betting that inside of five years, various cities and counties that do not currently readily issue permits, will decide to start issuing permits just to avoid big legal hassles.

But this is me being an optimist. There's plenty who will tell you (sometimes, I think, with their own brand of insidious hope) that California will not be shall-issue on CCWs in our lifetimes.

[nicki]

I agree with Bugron that will probably will get "Open Carry" first after Nordyke.

States can regulate carrying concealed arms, even that is said in "Heller".

However, if we are carrying arms openly, it is easy for all of us to say that we would gladly carry concealed if the state would reform the ccw laws by doing the following.

1. Make fees more reasonable, like a driver's license for instance.
2. Make the licenses good for 5 years like a driver's license.

3. Since it is a "state license", why can't we go to any "state office, like a DMV" and get our permits.

4. Many sheriff's seem to only issue to those who make large campaign contributions. Seems to me some people here just in principle will not contribute to a corrupt political process.

Open carry marches across the state with a bill of greivances would help us politically.

We probably will have to do lawsuits, but while I think the 2nd is important, I think equal protection will carry the day for us on CCW.

Nicki

[Meplat]

When I see shall issue in DC. The jurisdiction that Heller was decided against. I will have hope that incorporation will bring it to CA. Heller did not address anything like carry in public. I will defer to folks like Gene who know more about the law than I, but personally I don't see it in my lifetime. Better to work on electing good sherifs.

[RomanDad]

When I see shall issue in DC. The jurisdiction that Heller was decided against. I will have hope that incorporation will bring it to CA. Heller did not address anything like carry in public. I will defer to folks like Gene who know more about the law than I, but personally I don't see it in my lifetime. Better to work on electing good sherifs.

[The operative clause of the Second Amendment] "guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." Heller, 19.

[hoffmang]

The challenge that we'll bring will be on a sheriff who didn't issue a carry permit. Courts prefer to not strike down state laws. As such, open carry loaded is not legal and sheriffs can issue permits for "good cause." It's much easier for a Federal Court to simply require sheriffs to issue absent articulable and specific reason not to (felonies, recent arrests, etc.) That's going to get us shall issue CCW in CA. Then there are some interesting ways to expand that to LOC...

-Gene

[CA_Libertarian]

The challenge that we'll bring will be on a sheriff who didn't issue a carry permit. Courts prefer to not strike down state laws. As such, open carry loaded is not legal and sheriffs can issue permits for "good cause." It's much easier for a Federal Court to simply require sheriffs to issue absent articulable and specific reason not to (felonies, recent arrests, etc.) That's going to get us shall issue CCW in CA. Then there are some interesting ways to expand that to LOC...

-Gene

Now we're talkin'!

As much as I abhor those permission slips, I do realize most people don't mind them so much. Shall issue is a step in the right direction. In any case, it is better than what we have, and I think it moves us in the right direction for LOC.

Kudos to CGF for working with Madison Society (www.madison-society.org). These are very exciting times!

[truthseeker]

I hope it happens before the economy recovers. Right now CA has a huge deficit and fighting lawsuits that are related to the 2A would probably not be on the liberals front burner.

[bwiese]

I hope it happens before the economy recovers. Right now CA has a huge deficit and fighting lawsuits that are related to the 2A would probably not be on the liberals front burner.

Even when the economy recovers, CA state/local gov't funding won't, because mis/excess expenditures will continue to occur. Passing out free cookies will be in politicians' best interests over extended RKBA court fights.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

The challenge that we'll bring will be on a sheriff who didn't issue a carry permit. Courts prefer to not strike down state laws. As such, open carry loaded is not legal and sheriffs can issue permits for "good cause." It's much easier for a Federal Court to simply require sheriffs to issue absent articulable and specific reason not to (felonies, recent arrests, etc.) That's going to get us shall issue CCW in CA. Then there are some interesting ways to expand that to LOC...

-Gene

You're the lawyer (and I'm not), but I think it'll go the other way. IE; LOC first & then CCW. As Roman Dad pointed out:
"[The operative clause of the Second Amendment] "guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." Heller, 19."

Even The Left keeps harping on how people will be able to carry <all sorts of evil guns> on their hips. Openly. My own reading of HELLER leads me to the same conclusion. So, while the courts may not like striking down laws, I don't see how incorporation can have any other effect but to strike down 12031.

IMHO, the next step is insuring that LOC is truly universal. IE; teaching the manager at Denny's, etc., that it really is lawful for me to eat my burger with heat on my hip. Teaching the manager at Frys, etc., that it really is legal for me to shop for a new TV with heat on my hip. Teaching the mallcops that it really is lawful for me to wander thru the malls with heat on my hip. I think I have an approach that will accomplish this.

Here in San Diego county, we have a lawyer in a wheelchair who's bit is to sue businesses that aren't wheelchair accessible. If the business makes the mods, the lawyer takes a token settlement & drops the suit. His goal isn't to make a lot of money, but to make wheelchair access truly universal.

My idea is that we emulate this lawyer. IE; just walk into a mall, a Denny's, a Fry's or whatever "non sensitive" place & wait for the mallcop or manager to ask us to leave or call the cops. Then, file suit against them. Once the mall or whatever accepts the new reality, take a token settlement. I don't see it taking long before LOC is again truly universal.

The Raisuli

[bdsmchs]

IMHO, the next step is insuring that LOC is truly universal. IE; teaching the manager at Denny's, etc., that it really is lawful for me to eat my burger with heat on my hip. Teaching the manager at Frys, etc., that it really is legal for me to shop for a new TV with heat on my hip. Teaching the mallcops that it really is lawful for me to wander thru the malls with heat on my hip. I think I have an approach that will accomplish this.


Well now you're talking about private businesses though. If a private business decides that they don't want any customers walking into their shop with a gun on their hip, they can set that policy and as customers we have to abide by that.

[GuyW]

Here in San Diego county, we have a lawyer in a wheelchair who's bit is to sue businesses that aren't wheelchair accessible. If the business makes the mods, the lawyer takes a token settlement & drops the suit. His goal isn't to make a lot of money, but to make wheelchair access truly universal.


That's not true - his goal is to make a lot of money (and he does) without having to actually do any work (and he doesn't).

It's really nothing but an extortion racket using the courts...

He is a reprehensible facsimile of a human being...

[stag1500]

One of the prospects that worries me if we get shall-issue-ccw is that business/restaurants and shopping malls could retaliate against us and prohibit the carrying of firearms (concealed or not) on their premises. Texas already prohibits ccw holders from carrying firearms in shopping malls. AMC Mercado in Santa Clara has "No Firearms Allowed" (picture of a revolver with a red line through it) signs on their doors.

[sorensen440]

Well now you're talking about private businesses though. If a private business decides that they don't want any customers walking into their shop with a gun on their hip, they can set that policy and as customers we have to abide by that.

That's correct
If you own a private business you can require that your customers only wear pink socks if you would like.

[sorensen440]

One of the prospects that worries me if we get shall-issue-ccw is that business/restaurants and shopping malls could retaliate against us and prohibit the carrying of firearms (concealed or not) on their premises. Texas already prohibits ccw holders from carrying firearms in shopping malls. AMC Mercado in Santa Clara has "No Firearms Allowed" (picture of a revolver with a red line through it) signs on their doors.

And many places do the opposite when they find out they lose business
Its a company's right to decide if they want to allow firearms in there private establishment (with a few exceptions )

[yellowfin]

Hey Gene, one small question: would prosecuting sheriffs on corruption for issuing to campaign donors be in the picture? That's one of the sticks they're using to beat Carona with, mainly because he was pro issue, yet so many of the non issuing sheriffs are guilty of the same thing yet thus far have been let off the hook. I know TBJ is suing them, but that's a mosquito bite by comparison.

[N6ATF]

And many places do the opposite when they find out they lose business
Its a company's right to decide if they want to allow firearms in there private establishment (with a few exceptions )

Lose business, or find out that those signs increase their criminal victimization.

[nicki]

Perhaps we need to buy shares in those businesses that post no guns, then intiatite share holder lawsuits since the board of directors would be deliberately reducing profits with a no gun policy.

Nicki

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Well now you're talking about private businesses though. If a private business decides that they don't want any customers walking into their shop with a gun on their hip, they can set that policy and as customers we have to abide by that.

Its not quite that simple. Being 'open to the public' imposes some duties on a business. Like having toilets that are handicap accessible. Being a private business doesn't allow the disregard of this Federal requirement. That's why this example occurred to me. I don't think a mall could exclude me if I wore a pro-McCain t-shirt, for example.

If the legalities aren't that clear-cut now, then now would be a good time to make them that clear-cut.

The Raisuli

[CA_Libertarian]

Its not quite that simple. Being 'open to the public' imposes some duties on a business. Like having toilets that are handicap accessible. Being a private business doesn't allow the disregard of this Federal requirement. That's why this example occurred to me. I don't think a mall could exclude me if I wore a pro-McCain t-shirt, for example.

If the legalities aren't that clear-cut now, then now would be a good time to make them that clear-cut.

The Raisuli

I agree that the law does require businesses to meet certain requirements under the American's with Disabilities Act. However, there is no such specific requirement for gun owners.

I think that the current government intrusion onto business owners' private property is shameful. Tax and control - that's what the government wants to do to all of us, and it starts with business owners. Leave them alone. If they don't accomodate people who need wheelchair access, then they deserve to lose business from those people. The free market sorts these things out nicely, as long as the government stays out of it.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

I agree that the law does require businesses to meet certain requirements under the American's with Disabilities Act. However, there is no such specific requirement for gun owners.

I think that the current government intrusion onto business owners' private property is shameful. Tax and control - that's what the government wants to do to all of us, and it starts with business owners. Leave them alone. If they don't accomodate people who need wheelchair access, then they deserve to lose business from those people. The free market sorts these things out nicely, as long as the government stays out of it.

That would be the ideal. But, we live in a less than ideal world. The govt is already into our lives in a big way. I literally can't take a crap w/o a federal regulation being involved. I don't see that changing. Seeing that this is the case, it's time that we accept & take advantage of reality for our benefit. Which means that we push to make guns as important as toilets.

The Raisuli

[Theseus]

Wow...guns as important as toilets?

Well, I use my gun...well, maybe a couple times a month. . . My toilet twice a day at least! I don't think any law will ever change that.

[yellowfin]

If you had a carry permit or could LOC freely, your sidearm would be about as prevalent as your toilet. This is why the carry issue is the central front to 2A rights: all of our firearm rights are all too easily isolated as unimportant obscure expensive hobby items when it's something that's just locked in a safe except for an hour every weekend or so. As such, the soccer mom in the checkout line has no contact with a bunch of men making loud noises at an isolated patch of land outside of town and no reason to identify with it. Tolerate it at best, most likely indifferent, often here antagonistic and hateful out of fear, never a chance of understanding it. Getting past that barrier is the essential task, and self defense via daily carry is the one way we have something to offer them they could actually get, and not just throw in the same heap as car repair and other things they don't give a crap about.

[Sobriquet]

TEN YEARS before normal law-abiding citizens can get a CCW permit?

Gene, do you agree with that assessment? I knew it wouldn't be next week, but that's an eternity. To me, getting sheriffs to issue with a "personal protection" good cause statement is as good as shall-issue. Do you see that happening any sooner?

[swhatb]

heller was imp

[Meplat]

If it is just private policy it ain't no big deal for CCW. They are very unlikely to know who is carrying and if they do find out so what? Sue me. The most they are likely to do is ask you to leave. Those signs with the pistol and the red circle are just to make the wussies feel good.:p

LOC is another matter. You will be summarily turned away from 90% of businesses. Especially in the "enlightened and progressive" bay area and LA basin. The stores will lose more business by allowing LOC than prohibiting it. I think pushing LOC is a big mistake for now.

I see Heller as a big step forward but I also see it full of holes as a strainer. There is a lot of room for "reasonable" controls. With a political climate like we have the libs will be passing laws right and left. And the local LE and DA will be joyfully pushing them to the limit. They will make laws that will put a fine line between LOC and "brandishing" or "aggressive display of a firearm". There will be a thousand sons and daughters of the "safe guns list". With LOC there will be "retention" holsters required that will take a crowbar, a stick of dynamite and a note from your mother to get your gun out of. They will probably require holsters with a cooling off period built in. How about "safer" ammunition nothing over 500 FPS to prevent over penetration. I can think these up all day and so can the antis. And they will all sound reasonable to the treehuggers and panther-cuddlers in Frisco and LA, where the votes are.

Heller is not Yorktown, It's not even Cowpens, it is Concord Bridge.



One of the prospects that worries me if we get shall-issue-ccw is that business/restaurants and shopping malls could retaliate against us and prohibit the carrying of firearms (concealed or not) on their premises. Texas already prohibits ccw holders from carrying firearms in shopping malls. AMC Mercado in Santa Clara has "No Firearms Allowed" (picture of a revolver with a red line through it) signs on their doors.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

If it is just private policy it ain't no big deal for CCW. They are very unlikely to know who is carrying and if they do find out so what? Sue me. The most they are likely to do is ask you to leave. Those signs with the pistol and the red circle are just to make the wussies feel good.:p

LOC is another matter. You will be summarily turned away from 90% of businesses. Especially in the "enlightened and progressive" bay area and LA basin. The stores will lose more business by allowing LOC than prohibiting it. I think pushing LOC is a big mistake for now.

I see Heller as a big step forward but I also see it full of holes as a strainer. There is a lot of room for "reasonable" controls. With a political climate like we have the libs will be passing laws right and left. And the local LE and DA will be joyfully pushing them to the limit. They will make laws that will put a fine line between LOC and "brandishing" or "aggressive display of a firearm". There will be a thousand sons and daughters of the "safe guns list". With LOC there will be "retention" holsters required that will take a crowbar, a stick of dynamite and a note from your mother to get your gun out of. They will probably require holsters with a cooling off period built in. How about "safer" ammunition nothing over 500 FPS to prevent over penetration. I can think these up all day and so can the antis. And they will all sound reasonable to the treehuggers and panther-cuddlers in Frisco and LA, where the votes are.

Heller is not Yorktown, It's not even Cowpens, it is Concord Bridge.

I disagree. Yes, all the nonsense that you listed can (and most likely will) be trotted out. But, "reasonable" to a PRK judge & a Federal judge have two different meanings. And since HELLER (and soon I hope, NORDYKE and/or McDonald v. Chicago) makes this a Federal issue, it is in Federal courts that the fight will be fought.

In that venue, a comparison will be made between what the PRK wants & what the other states do. Is it "reasonable" to impose a requirement here when the other 49 don't? I don't see the answer being in the affirmative. I'm told that in UT that its illegal for malls & such to ban handguns. So, the reason that the signs with the pistol & slash marks JUST make the wussies feel good (there) is that they have no legal weight behind them.

It isn't that clear here yet. There are fights yet to be fought. My point is that the time to fight them is NOW. Now is when we have 5 of 9. So, NOW is the time to push LOC, & for the reasons mentioned by yellowfin2. Getting housewives on our side matters, & this isn't going to happen until Winnifred Whitebread starts interacting with us on a regular basis.

The Raisuli

[ilbob]

I don't think there is any way to judge with any certainty how this will play out or over what time frame.

If I were a betting man, I would bet there is nothing like shall issue in CA for at least a decade. LOC might happen, but I would not bet on that either.

There are really three things that have to be litigated, and all three will probably end up in the SC before anything meaningful happens. Keep in mind that Heller was a huge win in DC and nothing substantial has changed with their gun laws yet.

1. Is the 2A incorporated against the states? I am guessing that any court that rules in favor of incorporation is also going to give the state a chance to appeal it to a higher court before the ruling takes affect. Its just uncharted territory. Even if a court thinks incorporation is appropriate, they are not going to want to upset the apple cart by forcing it to be put into action real quickly.

Once you have established that the right protects citizens from state actions, you can proceed to #2 and #3.

2. What is the extent of the right to keep arms? What kinds of guns are covered? How many? What condition are they to be kept in? Where can you keep them? What restrictions on acquisition are permitted? Is ammo covered? What about accessories?

3. What is the extent of the right to bear arms? What guns can be carried and where?

The other side is eventually going to figure out that just arguing the failed collective right argument is not going to cut it. They will figure out a better series of arguments. In a lot of ways, the antis have helped us out a lot in the legal battles to date. They will get smarter about it.

There is an awful lot of bad precedent that could be used against us to restrict the 2A. Think about how the 4th has been all but gutted by the decisions allowing police to have drunk driving checkpoints and the Terry Stop rule. Or how the exigent circumstances exception has been permitted to be just about anything as long as the right weasel words are used.

[yellowfin]

Why the heck are #2 and #3 negotiable to you? Are there certain fingers you don't mind getting chopped off, or certain classes you expect D's and F's from your kids? If we get incorporation we take the gloves off and call all the antis' nonsense for the sophistry it is. In court, in public, right front and center. Stop playing nicey nicey assuming all their stuff is gospel--call a spade a spade for a change. It's not that hard, really.

[Aegis]

Shall issue would be nice, but may take years with the current group in Sacramento. LOC will probably be the fastest way to self defense outside of the home assuming a favorable decision in Nordyke. Heller supports LOC. If the Nordyke's win and we get incorporation, PC 12031 is no longer valid. Do we get to LOC right away pending an appeal by the opposition or do we still have to be bound by a state law that is clearly in direct violation of our 2A rights until the courts sort it out? If there is an appeal from the 9th circuit it would be heard by the SC. Maybe the SC will not hear the appeal? Then does the 9th circuit decision for incorporation become law in those states within the circuit?

[hoffmang]

1. CCW will certainly be widespread in CA before 2019.

2. The corruption angle isn't actually very useful towards getting CCW and then LOC.

3. If you read the Penal Code closely (and it is a dense section on carry) you will realize that there is no way to bear arms without a "Carry Permit." The law is very clear on this. It is not a CCW permit - it is a license to carry permit. The legislature has determined in what manner one can bear arms in California and it is specifically limited to "a licensed to carry concealed", "where the population of the county is [not] less than 200,000."

What #3 means is that the right to bear arms recognized in Heller is only available to Californians who apply for a permit under PC 12050. Just like Gura characterized DC's laws as a ban on the possession or use of handguns for self defense in the home, we'll sue on the denial of a 12050 carry permit as the denial of the right to self defense as protected under the "bear" prong of Heller.

It is not more complex, nor less complex than that. Yes the state can regulate CCW per Heller, just as DC can institute legitimate safe storage or licensing/registration, but CA sheriffs do not have constitutional discretion to not issue absent articulable facts about a specific applicant (felon, etc.)

-Gene

[RomanDad]

1. CCW will certainly be widespread in CA before 2019.

2. The corruption angle isn't actually very useful towards getting CCW and then LOC.

3. If you read the Penal Code closely (and it is a dense section on carry) you will realize that there is no way to bear arms without a "Carry Permit." The law is very clear on this. It is not a CCW permit - it is a license to carry permit. The legislature has determined in what manner one can bear arms in California and it is specifically limited to "a licensed to carry concealed", "where the population of the county is [not] less than 200,000."

What #3 means is that the right to bear arms recognized in Heller is only available to Californians who apply for a permit under PC 12050. Just like Gura characterized DC's laws as a ban on the possession or use of handguns for self defense in the home, we'll sue on the denial of a 12050 carry permit as the denial of the right to self defense as protected under the "bear" prong of Heller.

It is not more complex, nor less complex than that. Yes the state can regulate CCW per Heller, just as DC can institute legitimate safe storage or licensing/registration, but CA sheriffs do not have constitutional discretion to not issue absent articulable facts about a specific applicant (felon, etc.)

-Gene

:iagree:

[Mulay El Raisuli]

The other side is eventually going to figure out that just arguing the failed collective right argument is not going to cut it. They will figure out a better series of arguments. In a lot of ways, the antis have helped us out a lot in the legal battles to date. They will get smarter about it.

Actually, I don't think they will come up with better arguments. Simply because they don't have better arguments. It isn't a matter of 'smart' or not. The Basic Question (militia or individual?) has been answered. Since each & every infringement is based on the fallacy that the 2nd refers to a militia right, the basis for those infringements no longer exists. Look at how much effort the 9th. put into 'justifying' their Ruling in the original NORDYKE. The reason they took such pains to show that the 2nd referred to militia rights is because they HAD TO. Alameda wouldn't have stood a tinker's chance otherwise. Just as they don't stand a tinker's chance now.

There is an awful lot of bad precedent that could be used against us to restrict the 2A. Think about how the 4th has been all but gutted by the decisions allowing police to have drunk driving checkpoints and the Terry Stop rule. Or how the exigent circumstances exception has been permitted to be just about anything as long as the right weasel words are used.

Even with all of that, the basic Right still exists. So, while I see some infringements staying (no bazookas), I don't see the basic Right going away. The most basic part of the Right is LOC. After that is shall-issue CCW. There again might be some infringements allowed in that there might be some exotic weaponry disallowed & there will most likely be restrictions on where CCW is allowed (the "sensitive places" mentioned in HELLER), but that's about it.

As for speeding things up, I've no doubt that somewhere in this great state there's someone appealing a conviction for violating 12031CPC. All that must be done is to provide this guy with a decent lawyer to argue the unconstitutionality of 12031CPC. We don't need to have some martyr get arrested as soon as NORDYKE gets decided. That'll only add time to the process. Its at the appellate court level that things get done & a fresh case means waiting for months while it gets there & there's no sense in that. The drawback to defending a guy on our own, & why I'm sure the NRA won't do this, is that it won't be easy to find an 'acceptable' guy to defend. Most of the guys charged with violating 12031 are sleazeballs & the NRA doesn't like defending sleazeballs. No one does, but when change is desired regarding a criminal law matter, defending criminals is the only way to go. Consider the MIRANDA Decision. Ernesto Miranda was a complete sleazeball. Every breath he took was a waste of oxygen. Yet, his is the name that's attached to a very important protection for all of us. Should his lawyer have passed on the chance to increase our protections just because Ernesto was a sleazeball? According to the NRA, yes, he should have. I disagree, which is one of the reasons I don't send money to the NRA anymore.

Anyway, I'll bet that there's an assoc. of some type that appellate lawyers belong to. We wouldn't have to hire a lawyer ourselves. All we'd have to do is send an e-mail to that assoc. (telling them that there's a new way to get their clients off) & let them go to work. With a little luck, we'll have LOC by summertime. And the nice lawyers won't have to get their hands dirty.

To Aegis: If the 9th. does incorporate, it will only apply in the 9th Circuit. But, the Circuits do listen to what the others have to say. They might just adopt the logic & base a Ruling in their Circuit on that. SCOTUS only steps in when there's a disagreement between the various Circuits (one of the reasons SCOTUS accepted HELLER). If they all agree on incorporation (which I see as quite likely), then there'll be no need to wait for SCOTUS to do anything.

The Raisuli