It's Easter. Nordyke is won, we have incorporation. Now what?

[lowracer]

Flash forward to the future: It's Easter 2009. The Nordyke decision has just been handed down. We won! The court also says the 2nd amendment is incorporated to CA and the 50 states.

After the celebrations, what happens next for CA? What happens immediately, and what happens only after more lawsuits?

* Loaded open carry?
* Shall issue concealed carry?
* So-called "Assault Weapons" restrictions?
(prohibited models, detachable mags, pistol grips, evil features etc)
* Handgun roster?
* One handgun a month?
* 10-day waiting period?
* Standard capacity Magazines?
* Machine guns, silencers, short barrelled rifles, etc. availability?
* Person to person transfers w/o FFL?
* Anything else?

What happens elsewhere in the other 49 states?

[GMONEY]

I just want my own fleet of tanks and F16's... :43:

[hoffmang]

The likely major pushes after Nordyke is final are in no particular order:

Handgun Roster
Shall issue CCW
Semiautomatic Centerfire Rifles

We have a couple of creative ways in the hopper to go after 2 of the 3 above.

-Gene

[JDay]

The likely major pushes after Nordyke is final are in no particular order:

Handgun Roster
Shall issue CCW
Semiautomatic Centerfire Rifles

We have a couple of creative ways in the hopper to go after 2 of the 3 above.

-Gene

More than anything I want to see the AW ban struck down (including "high-cap magazine ban) and the handgun roster, in that order. Open carry should be a given with the "and bear" provision of the Second Amendment. I'm sure shall issue would come quick after that.

[sorensen440]

It would seem that after the first couple are picked off that the rest will be much faster to dissolve

[technique]

Whoot Whoot.....all of the above and more...http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1989_dancers_dancing_to_a_dj_playing_music.gif (http://www.clipartof.com)

[hoffmang]

Also, there is some method to the madness of which things we chase first as certain core holdings to get the obvious ones done right make other cases much easier. As soon as we can be a bit more concrete about some of the first post Nordyke litigation (which is sooner than most people expect) I can explain how some of the core cases let us get other cases won more easily.

-Gene

[BigDogatPlay]

The likely major pushes after Nordyke is final are in no particular order:

Handgun Roster
Shall issue CCW
Semiautomatic Centerfire Rifles

We have a couple of creative ways in the hopper to go after 2 of the 3 above.

-Gene

FWIW, and in the spirit of Heller, I'd like to see the roster gone after first.

The court held in Heller that the DC ban was wrong, in part, because the handgun was essentially the most commonly available and utilized instrument for self defense. That bloody roster, and the equal protection issue raised by LEOs having more rights than the rest of us (remembering that I am a former LEO), is to me target of opportunity number one that would have the single greatest impact.

I tip my cap to all those in the black rifle fraternity, which I've joined myself recently, however I believe the broadest initial effect can be acheived with a successful overturning of the roster.

[bulgron]

Shall issue CCW first. Everything else is a sideshow.

[Shotgun Man]

Just one random opinion, and I'm sure it does not matter in the grand scheme of things, but I vote for overturning CA's AWB first.

[tango-52]

I see Shall Issue as a primary objective. If we aren't allowed to protect ourselves "in case of confrontation" (Heller @19) then the others won't help us in self-defense situations. Without your life, nothing else matters.

[7x57]

I see Shall Issue as a primary objective. If we aren't allowed to protect ourselves "in case of confrontation" (Heller @19) then the others won't help us in self-defense situations. Without your life, nothing else matters.

I'd argue immediate usefulness doesn't matter. What matters to me is the endgame, so I'd say go in whatever order leaves us the best precedents for ending up with the law that the founders intended, or the closest feasible substitute.

In other words, I am willing to be denied rights and take whatever risks now if it will make my boy more free. If that is a toss-up, then whichever is the biggest obstacles to extending the benefits of the right to new/more people (shall-issue), because again that's an issue for the future.

But if we're making wish lists, I'd sure like to see castle doctrine and stand-your-ground to be priorities. Without those, we only have part of the right of self-defense, and we still have a society where criminals are secure in the knowledge that the government is offering them business assistance and health care benefits for their career in crime. I'm not entirely sure whether the courts will agree that Heller helps with those, even though from my point of view I cannot fully possess the right of self defense without placing the burden of proving that a shooting was unlawful on the DA (we already have inside the home I think) and immunity from civil suit if the DA could not prove that it was not a justifiable homicide. Otherwise, the state is often an accomplice to the criminal rather than a shield to the citizen.

I rather suspect those were not on the list because shall-issue needs to come first, though.

7x57

[DDT]

I think the "right people" are trying to make sure the laws are attacked in such a way the the biggest legal issues are tackled first. This way each succeeding suit builds upon the former and becomes easier and easier to close.

Again, this is all assuming that we get incorporation from Nordyke. I am still very suspicious that the 9th may try and rule favorably for Nordyke while side-stepping incorporation. Thankfully one of the four questions is specifically about incorporation so they will have a difficult time of it but I still suspect they will try.

[oddball]

1) Number one priority for me would be concealed carry.

2) Castle Doctrine for CA.

3) Getting rid of the AWB.

4) Handgun Roster.

[rbgaynor]

I'd argue immediate usefulness doesn't matter. What matters to me is the endgame, so I'd say go in whatever order leaves us the best precedents for ending up with the law that the founders intended, or the closest feasible substitute.


+1, well said.

[JDay]

But if we're making wish lists, I'd sure like to see castle doctrine and stand-your-ground to be priorities.

You have no duty to retreat in CA.

[SigAlert]

1) Number one priority for me would be concealed carry.

2) Castle Doctrine for CA.

3) Getting rid of the AWB.

4) Handgun Roster.


I agree entirely. The latest wiz-bang off roster handgun won't do you any good sitting at home.

[sorensen440]

Heres a poll I threw up a while back to see what everyone thought

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=136036

[SanSacto]

Shall issue CCW first. Everything else is a sideshow.

+1 on that. Would you prefer? Not being able to concealed carry but being able to have any gun you want? Or being able to concealed carry with the handguns that are on the roster? I want to be able to concealed carry, then work about what guns we can have after that.

[bwiese]

My personal first priority is to keep people out of jail.

So attacking the Ca AWB first keeps the proverbial "53 yr old plumber in Manteca having the wrong piece of metal on his rifle" out of jail and financially solvent (i.e, avoid fines, bail, lawyer fees).

Keeping gunnies out of jail & not charged is always a priority because criminal cases can jam up policy evolution. AW laws still have felony risk and that body of law needs to be ripped apart.

[sorensen440]

My personal first priority is to keep people out of jail.

So attacking the Ca AWB first keeps the proverbial "53 yr old plumber in Manteca having the wrong piece of metal on his rifle" out of jail and financially solvent (i.e, avoid fines, bail, lawyer fees).

Keeping gunnies out of jail & not charged is always a priority because criminal cases can jam up policy evolution. AW laws still have felony risk and that body of law needs to be ripped apart.

I agree 100%
there are way too many laws that are impossible for the non calgunner to understand

[tyrist]

The AW ban I don't think will go away...however I do think the state will be required to issue permits for an AW.

[BigDogatPlay]

While I don't necessarily disagree with trying to force shall issue CCW, Heller has nothing to do with CCW. The decision spoke to that specifically. I think there needs to be several intervening steps, assuming a favorable incorporation ruling with Nordyke, before you start attacking CCW issuance solely on Heller grounds.

ETA: I believe we'll see some modification or nullification of the AWB long before we see shall issue. But that's just my opinion.

[nicoroshi]

Thought I would also chime in on this (for what it's worth);

1. "Shall issue" CCW.
This I see as something directly related to Heller, and one's right to defend themselves.
2. AWB, and Mag cap laws.
Seeing the facts on exactly how many AW are actually used in crime (very, very few), and how limiting the capacity on magazines has had little to no effect on the 'war on crime'. These are some I see as targets when the right to defend oneself is concrete.
3.Handgun roster & all others.
With the right to defend oneself firmly in place, and the means to obtain a suitable configuration to do so the rest should fall into place.
The above is only my personal 'wish list' on the order of things based on my own line of thinking. If the ends is a free California I am willing to follow the lead of those who have more experience with California law regardless of the order of freedoms restored.

[hoffmang]

While I don't necessarily disagree with trying to force shall issue CCW, Heller has nothing to do with CCW. The decision spoke to that specifically. I think there needs to be several intervening steps, assuming a favorable incorporation ruling with Nordyke, before you start attacking CCW issuance solely on Heller grounds.

California has a little problem in its laws. Either 12031 or 12050 interpreted to allow discretion is unconstitutional. It's a binary either, or.

I think for certain legal and political reasons the courts and the legislature in California will choose to interpret "may issue" to really mean "will issue to anyone not prohibited." This is of course post Nordyke being final.

-Gene

[sorensen440]

I think for certain legal and political reasons the courts and the legislature in California will choose to interpret "may issue" to really mean "will issue to anyone not prohibited." This is of course post Nordyke being final.

-Gene

I wonder who will be prohibited...

[CCWFacts]

1) Number one priority for me would be concealed carry.

Me too. That seems to cut off all the other gun control efforts. No state that has ever gone shall-issue has ever passed any meaningful gun control legislation subsequently.

2) Castle Doctrine for CA.

We already basically have it.

3) Getting rid of the AWB.

Me too, but getting rid of the magazine restrictions would be the first sub-priority in this, for me.

[Window_Seat]

SICCW
Allowing LOC (in your vehicle)
§12031(e) being thrown out
Abolish "Gun Free School Zones"
AWB
HGR
1 per 30 day limit on handguns
Allowing PPT without FFL
No more 10 day wait
CCW/LOC for employees while on the job
Businesses that have "no guns allowed" rules


The vehicle laws would also need to be looked at because the Legislature will do everything they can to make sure they continually keep everything illegal in a vehicle, even in your own garage.

One thing to remember is that the CA Legislature (CL) will try to make SICCW OK for anything NOT outside of your driveway. They will otherwise try to make you dip your gun into cement first, then you can take it outside on your person.

The one thing I would like to especially see is the Law Enforcement community being completely educated on all of the above (including in the other posts) so we are not detained at GP & falsely arrested (or much worse) when engaging in legal activities and complying with the law at the same time (no I'm not anti-LEO, yes I'm PRO-LEO, so let's not make that an issue please).

These should all be attacked in the same legislative session with the highest priority, but I have a feeling it will still be a major challenge to get the CL to begin to comply.

This WILL go to SCOTUS

Erik; planning to plan a trip to SCOTUS

[yellowfin]

My personal first priority is to keep people out of jail.

So attacking the Ca AWB first keeps the proverbial "53 yr old plumber in Manteca having the wrong piece of metal on his rifle" out of jail and financially solvent (i.e, avoid fines, bail, lawyer fees).

Keeping gunnies out of jail & not charged is always a priority because criminal cases can jam up policy evolution. AW laws still have felony risk and that body of law needs to be ripped apart.
Counterattack with official oppression law additionally or in the meantime. You won't have people going to jail for an OLL when it could cost the people trying to put them there the same sentence or worse, and it should. That would fix your AWB and keep any others of any kind from being passed. We don't need ANY of the bogus stuff flying around, be it for a rifle they don't like, a magazine, open carry, etc. The technicalities of the law are a symptom of the problem: it's the state sanctioned mistreatment that is THE problem. It needs to be on them with equal or greater consequences TO THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE (not get to play with the state's money for being stupid) instead of all on us to the tune $10-30k+ a pop and months for "Oh well, you're right it's not against the law, you're free to go, sorry about that."

1. Shall issue.
2. Campus carry if another state gets it first within the next 4-5 months.
3. Official oppression.
4. AWB

[csmintel]

Shall issue CCW first. Everything else is a sideshow.

what's the point of shall issue CCW if you can't carry a proper handgun? Without the roster we can git nothin'

[Jedi]

My thoughts on this:

The first case post Nordyke should be one of CCW. Here is why: The 2nd Amendment incorporation, even under Heller, isn't the issue of interest in this case, it is instead the 14th Amendment argument of equal protection. The current method of issuance has been proven to be filled with inequality. Adaptation of a Shall Issue policy is the best way to comply with the 14th Amendment.

After this victory, the next step should be to overturn the safe weapons list, as it restricts the type of firearms we can own (Heller, Nordyke) and does not provide for equal protection, as LEO can purchase weapons not on the list (CCW, Nordyke).

Once these have been decided, the capacity limits will be easy to defeat. That will then start inroads to undermine the AW ban.

[7x57]

You have no duty to retreat in CA.

I thought that was only true in the home. If I'm wrong, good news.

The ability to be sued for everything you own by the perp or his survivors in civil court is just as important. You should not be threatened with a second official mugging if you manage to survive the first one. If I were king I would not allow anyone to sue for anything that happened while engaged in crime, but I'm not.

7x57

[7x57]

My personal first priority is to keep people out of jail.

So attacking the Ca AWB first

It does have the additional theoretical benefit of going after the weapons second-most intended for protection.

7x57

[bulgron]

what's the point of shall issue CCW if you can't carry a proper handgun? Without the roster we can git nothin'

lol. Well, I happen to think my Sig P229 which I purchased last year, and the Kimber Ultra Carry II that I'm going to buy on Tuesday (Obama is making me do it, you know) are "proper handguns." I'm also rather fond of my Ruger GP-100.

We have a lot of choices in this state for handgun purchases. Enough, that I think we can safely say that we can access "proper handguns." Maybe not everything we might want, but certainly we have some choices.

No doubt the roster needs to go. But I don't see it as priority number 1.

Heller basically said we're allowed to keep and bear arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. Yes, it is true that the scope of the Heller decision was in the home. But is it really a huge stretch of logic to extend the court's recognition beyond the threshold of my front door?

And, yes, that right probably only extends to loaded open carry. But I promise you that if people start asking their CLEOs if they want us carrying LOC or CCW, the answer is going to be (almost always) CCW. And that's how we'll start getting permits.

It might not even have to be a huge, public outcry. A few quiet conversations with (currently) non-issuing Sheriffs and CLEOs might just do it. Which will leave all the drama for the really hard-core anti-gun places like LA and SF.

[sorensen440]

what's the point of shall issue CCW if you can't carry a proper handgun? Without the roster we can git nothin'

We don't have all the choices we should but we do have quite a few solid platforms to choose from.

[hoffmang]

I wonder who will be prohibited...

That is a term of art for not being able to pass NICS.

-Gene

[Aegis]

Assuming a win in Nordyke gaining incorporation, what is the chance the opposition appeals to SCOTUS? If so, is it likely SCOTUS will take the case? If so, how long will it take to hear the case. Based on Heller, I don't think the opposition appeals to SCOTUS if they lose Nordyke, but I may be wrong. Any thoughts?

[tyrist]

I thought that was only true in the home. If I'm wrong, good news.

The ability to be sued for everything you own by the perp or his survivors in civil court is just as important. You should not be threatened with a second official mugging if you manage to survive the first one. If I were king I would not allow anyone to sue for anything that happened while engaged in crime, but I'm not.

7x57

I would be less concerned with the suspect and his family than with what happens if you accidently hit an innocent bystander.

[hoffmang]

Assuming a win in Nordyke gaining incorporation, what is the chance the opposition appeals to SCOTUS? If so, is it likely SCOTUS will take the case? If so, how long will it take to hear the case. Based on Heller, I don't think the opposition appeals to SCOTUS if they lose Nordyke, but I may be wrong. Any thoughts?

The other side should by no means appeal past en-banc, but every time I don't think they could be that stupid...

If Alameda applies for Cert, I'd give it a very high chance of being accepted (hence why they shouldn't apply.) If granted, we have 5.

-Gene

[DDT]

What are the chances that we get full incorporation and the courts still find the AWB constitutional? The federal AWB was never deemed unconstitutional and I don't think incorporation will mean the state can't have stricter laws than the feds, it only means that any state laws must also pass 2A muster.

[yellowfin]

What are the chances that we get full incorporation and the courts still find the AWB constitutional? The federal AWB was never deemed unconstitutional.It was also never brought to question, AFAIK.

[383green]

I will entirely defer to the judgement of the Right People regarding which things should be attacked in which order. That being said, since it isn't time to openly discuss the game plan yet, here are my personal preferences:

Regarding shall-issue CCW, I would set this as my highest priority, unless unlicensed loaded open carry made it a moot point. I want myself and my countrymen and -women to be able to BEAR arms to protect themselves. I don't have a strong personal preference between concealed or open carry. If I had both options, I'd probably lean towards concealed carry just to avoid scaring people, since seeing folks walking around with guns would be pretty novel in CA for a while.

My next priority would be overturning the AW+magazine bans.

I'd set a pretty low priority on overturning the handgun roster, since it appears that the NRF concept will handily castrate it in short order. While we also have ways to bypass the AW ban, those ways are more limited since they involve modifying the guns in annoying ways, as opposed to disassembly, transfer, and then reassembly in original configuration.

Just my two cents' worth... if the Right People think things should go in a different order to make things work out best in the big picture, then that's fine with me. I'm looking forward to hearing more about the overall post-incorporation strategy once it's time to discuss that stuff openly.

[hoffmang]

Let me see if I can shine some light on the decision matrix.

There are three axis that those of us talking about next steps think about when looking at which to hit next.

1. Impact
2. Ease
3. Setup

1. Impact is really how broadly good would nixing the law be. This weighs strongly for CCW/loaded carry for example as that really gets to the heart of the other part half of the right (bear.)

2. Ease matters because we want to be able to make these wins slam dunks. Footnote 23 in Heller makes it pretty darn clear to the lower courts that SCOTUS has told them to Incorporate or SCOTUS will do it for them. Incorporation is thus next. After Incorporation, certain quirks of the Roster make it really easy to kill and it leads me to 3.

3. Setup. Killing the roster expands from the protected handgun at home to making it clear that a partial ban isn't acceptable. If you can't partially ban handguns well, then you probably can't partially ban some semiautomatic centerfire rifles, can you?

Some of the weighing above changes based on the changing regulatory landscape and the nature of the actual decisions we get in the courts as it can lead to increasing or decreasing the factors above. Heller had a lot more on "bear" than any of us expected, thus significantly increasing the second factor for CCW/Loaded Open Carry to illustrate this point.

Less important is a subtle 4th factor which is taking certain political opportunities for the other side off the table to make it easier for us to spend political capital on things we would otherwise have to save it to spend on the worse items. AW bans fall in this category. If we can make it dead clear that they can't happen from the court's point of view, then we can fight harder on the stuff that looks "kinda maybe" more reasonable.

I hope that helps others think through what we're all thinking about.

-Gene

[383green]

Hmm, it's interesting and counter-intuitive that the most easily-bypassed item on the list might actually have the largest impact once eliminated. It's good that we have some bright minds thinking about this stuff!

[chris]

i would like to see the AW ban go to hell. it has been almost 20 yrs. since Roberti-Roos. I want it shredded and never be brought up again.

[CSDGuy]

What are the chances that we get full incorporation and the courts still find the AWB constitutional? The federal AWB was never deemed unconstitutional and I don't think incorporation will mean the state can't have stricter laws than the feds, it only means that any state laws must also pass 2A muster.

It was also never brought to question, AFAIK.
Remember, the 2nd Amendment hadn't been determined to be an individual vs. collective right until this past year. Had it still been in force, the Federal AWB would probably be challenged now, in light of the Heller decision. It probably was brought into question, but might never have gotten far enough for an appeals court to figure out the scope of the 2nd beyond Miller.

That's my two bits on this...

[mblat]

Given a choice?

1. shall-issue CCW
2. High-caps
3. AWB
4. Only then roster.

But roster is probably the easiest, so it would probably come first.

[CSDGuy]

I would see the "what then" types of cases going forward in fairly rapid succession in about this order:



Shall Issue CCW - Precisely for the inequality of issuance and it's squarely on the "bear" issue.
AWB - inequality of bearing one type vs another type of firearm (listed vs. OLL)
Magazine capacity - building on both above, no "safety" issues involved, and you can possess two versions of a magazine but can only purchase one of them...
Handgun Roster - toughest to crack... but it would rely on LEO vs non-LEO classes...

JMHO... and it's possible that the order of 2 and 4 could be reversed to provide similar results for #3.

[Liberty1]

For the Open Carries who might interpret a "CCW" case as the OC cause being thrown under the bus for a privilege, realize that "CCW" in CA is actually in the Penal Code a "License To Carry". This may make CA a licensed CCW/OC state with shall issue 12050 LTCs if we get the holding CGF seeks. If not then the court may then indicate that "CCW" restrictions are OK as unlicensed LOC is the protected right (as happened in Ohio).

Either way you slice it, "Bear" gets it's day, and LOC could also be the result either way.

[_Odin_]

My personal first priority is to keep people out of jail.

So attacking the Ca AWB first keeps the proverbial "53 yr old plumber in Manteca having the wrong piece of metal on his rifle" out of jail and financially solvent (i.e, avoid fines, bail, lawyer fees).

Keeping gunnies out of jail & not charged is always a priority because criminal cases can jam up policy evolution. AW laws still have felony risk and that body of law needs to be ripped apart.

+1 to that!

AWB first.

With Heller incorporation - attacking the AWB is the natural next step.

Ban on an entire class of firearms in popular use = unconstitutional. AW are a class of firearms in popular use. Hence CA AWB is unconstitutional.

[Theseus]

I still don't see how your argument is any better, open carry is already legal without a license, how would changing that to require a license be a good thing?

For the Open Carries who might interpret a "CCW" case as the OC cause being thrown under the bus for a privilege, realize that "CCW" in CA is actually in the Penal Code a "License To Carry". This may make CA a licensed CCW/OC state with shall issue 12050 LTCs if we get the holding CGF seeks. If not then the court may then indicate that "CCW" restrictions are OK as unlicensed LOC is the protected right (as happened in Ohio).

Either way you slice it, "Bear" gets it's day, and LOC could also be the result either way.

[swhatb]

For the Open Carries who might interpret a "CCW" case as the OC cause being thrown under the bus for a privilege, realize that "CCW" in CA is actually in the Penal Code a "License To Carry". This may make CA a licensed CCW/OC state with shall issue 12050 LTCs if we get the holding CGF seeks. If not then the court may then indicate that "CCW" restrictions are OK as unlicensed LOC is the protected right (as happened in Ohio).

Either way you slice it, "Bear" gets it's day, and LOC could also be the result either way.

good point...

[FreedomIsNotFree]

I still don't see how your argument is any better, open carry is already legal without a license, how would changing that to require a license be a good thing?

I believe he meant to add the "loaded" factor for incorporated areas.

[Theseus]

Oh, so I can be loaded if only I apply for permission from the State? Yeah, still not a win in my book. I should be able to OC loaded anyway.

[sorensen440]

Oh, so I can be loaded if only I apply for permission from the State? Yeah, still not a win in my book. I should be able to OC loaded anyway.

Doesnt work for me
If they can give it they can take it away

[DDT]

For the Open Carries who might interpret a "CCW" case as the OC cause being thrown under the bus for a privilege, realize that "CCW" in CA is actually in the Penal Code a "License To Carry". This may make CA a licensed CCW/OC state with shall issue 12050 LTCs if we get the holding CGF seeks. If not then the court may then indicate that "CCW" restrictions are OK as unlicensed LOC is the protected right (as happened in Ohio).

Either way you slice it, "Bear" gets it's day, and LOC could also be the result either way.

No, it is not a "License to carry" 12050 is pretty clear that the CLEO:

"may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the following formats:
(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. "

The term "either" makes it pretty clear that the 2 licenses are different. That being said, I would hope that any "shall issue" ruling or law would cover all of 12050 giving both OC and CCW devotees good news. I also suspect that most OCers would be quite happy to have CCW rights.

[sorensen440]

I also suspect that most OCers would be quite happy to have CCW rights.

Thats probably true but I wont happy till I can do both loaded

In the summer with shorts and a tanktop it would be nice to strap on a belt holster for my 686

[hoffmang]

Doesnt work for me
If they can give it they can take it away

You can't publish a paper for profit without a business license that the state is compelled to give you.

Also, open carry unloaded is currently legal without a license. Loaded open carry is prohibited. The state will initially be forced to choose between shall issue carry licenses or the prohibition on loaded open carry being stricken. We have plenty of ways to follow up afterwards to make sure that loaded open carry will not be prohibited long term. Think about long guns.

-Gene

[FreedomIsNotFree]

With incorporation of Heller the RKBA will be at its peak within the home. Any bans abridging that right will be difficult for the government to defend. This will obviously include handguns, but should equally cover single shot rifles, regardless of how intimidating they may appear. As you leave your home and begin to travel in public the RKBA comes under additional scrutiny and as we are all aware, if you travel into "sensitive" areas the RKBA can be completely abridged.

The safe handgun roster would seem to be a slam dunk considering both the 2nd Amendment and equal protection implications. I'm actually suprised it has survived this long under current law.

CCW I believe will be a much harder nut to crack based on the wording in Heller and I think we will face a similar situation as Ohio. Loaded open carry will be needed to force the CA legislature to allow more CCW licenses.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Doesnt work for me
If they can give it they can take it away

Are you opposed to loaded open carry? I believe the Constitutional protections are there for LOC, but not so much on the CCW side.

[sorensen440]

Are you opposed to loaded open carry? I believe the Constitutional protections are there for LOC, but not so much on the CCW side.

No Im not opposed to loaded open carry at all
CCW first but I don't think we should stop when we get that

[yellowfin]

You can't publish a paper for profit without a business license that the state is compelled to give you.

Also, open carry unloaded is currently legal without a license. Loaded open carry is prohibited. The state will initially be forced to choose between shall issue carry licenses or the prohibition on loaded open carry being stricken. We have plenty of ways to follow up afterwards to make sure that loaded open carry will not be prohibited long term. Think about long guns.

-GeneSure, UOC is legal, but is it satisfactory that LE can whack you upside the head with legal fees and living hell just because they feel like it and with zero reason not to? What part of LOC is going to make it any better if it can't be done where 70% of the population lives? Gotta tack on OO with it somehow to make it a right that dare not be encroached upon. The predation against OC'ers and the mentality behind it has got to be put to an end.

That I must say was the one thing I was highly disappointed with in the Nordyke argument by our side. They did not mention at all the inclination of mistreatment of gun owners under the law in CA as a broad concept and the gun show as an instance of malicious anti 2A mentality; that the need for incorporation is not just a relief from the instance itself but relief from pattern of abuse. They did not once mention that none of the approach taken by the county is at all common in the US, that their attitude and frame of thought in addressing gun shows and the common person with guns is neither backed up by experience nor even shared as an opinion by the actual mainstream. "Common sense" restriction is neither sense nor common.

[jlh95811]

Thank you for all the info hoffmang. Seems you have been playing close to the chest but are now revealing enough for us to understand what's going on. I appeciate all that you and everyone else does to help us folk with a lesser voice acheive our rights without getting into trouble.

I think if given the choice for CCW -OR- LOC they would choose the former over the latter. I would as well. Having a criminal always be in doubt of who might be carrying would be a good deterrent. I would much rather carry concealed anyway to have the element of surprise.

Of course I would love to see the roster go bye-bye as well as AWB. Just think of a HK45 with threaded barell. :thumbsup: sweet!

And as for the mag caps; I'd sure like to have 13 rounds of 45 and then add a 4 round extension to it. 17x45=I WIN!

[SwissFluCase]

I think the Supreme Court made an erroneous assumption regarding the term "bear". It seems to me that they looked at how people were carrying in 1875, when CCW was considered sneaky and evidence of intent to do wrong. In that day an honest man carried his sidearm openly so there was no question whether or not he was armed. Obviously, CCW doesn't have that stigma anymore. In fact, it is considered the polite way to carry, and the general public seems to prefer it over open carry (which is now looked at in a more critical light, or so it seems).

I'm curious as to how the Supreme Court got to this conclusion, after CCW became the rule and the standard civilian mode of carry in most of the US. It seems if this goes back to SCOTUS that this point could be argued. It certainly made me scratch my head when I read it. Not that I am complaining; we have a lot to work with as it stands.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[gravedigger]

For me, I still see problems with the either/or scenario. When I carry, I just want to LOADED CARRY. If I am ONLY allowed to carry concealed, then I have to be conscious of whether my shirt rides up as I lift a jar of pickles off of the top shelf in a grocery store, thus breaking the law that requires me to carry "concealed." If I OPEN carry, and I walk into a restaurant that has its air-conditioning turned up too high, I might want to throw on a sweatshirt or a jacket which may then inadvertently "conceal" or at least "partially conceal" my weapon as the flap of the jacket hangs over the grip or whatever.

So much talk about LOC vs. CCW, but I'd like folks to start thinking about simple LOADED CARRY, regardless of the status of the gun (visible or concealed) at any particular moment.

I would hate to see us think we "won" something, only to find out that the liberals are having a ball calling the cops to have us arrested for violating our carry privileges because a shirt tail momentarily COVERED a pistol grip of someone required to OC, or a good yawn momentarily REVEALED a concealed weapon of someone required to CC.

You know, the weather changes. One minute I am cold, the next minute I am hot. If I am CC under a coat or jacket and the sun comes out, and I find I am now BAKING in the sun and the sweat is burning my eyes, I want the option of removing my jacket and maybe even my shirt (thus converting my formerly CONCEALED weapon into an OPEN CARRY weapon) without having to worry about whether I will be arrested for avoiding heat stroke! Conversely, if I am OC and a rainstorm forces me to don a long yellow rubber raincoat, I don't want to spend a night in the Graybar Hotel just because I tried to keep my pistol from rusting!

So along with incorporation and all of the other stuff you guys are working on, PLEASE build into our fight the flexibility of not having to worry about the brief "oops!" moments that will almost certainly occur during an entire day of otherwise law-compliant carry, or the OC to CC to OC status change forced upon us by changing conditions. We are law abiding citizens, and frankly, I have more important things to worry about than whether my pistol can or cannot be seen at every waking moment. I don't check my fly every three seconds, and I darned sure don't want to keep checking my OC/CC compliance every three seconds either.

[CSDGuy]

You can't publish a paper for profit without a business license that the state is compelled to give you.

Also, open carry unloaded is currently legal without a license. Loaded open carry is prohibited in areas where discharge of firearms is prohibited. The state will initially be forced to choose between shall issue carry licenses or the prohibition on loaded open carry being stricken. We have plenty of ways to follow up afterwards to make sure that loaded open carry will not be prohibited long term. Think about long guns.

-Gene
Just a small refinement there... ;) I can see the "why" for going after Shall Issue & Long Gun stuff first...
Sure, UOC is legal, but is it satisfactory that LE can whack you upside the head with legal fees and living hell just because they feel like it and with zero reason not to? What part of LOC is going to make it any better if it can't be done where 70% of the population lives? Gotta tack on OO with it somehow to make it a right that dare not be encroached upon. The predation against OC'ers and the mentality behind it has got to be put to an end.

That I must say was the one thing I was highly disappointed with in the Nordyke argument by our side. They did not mention at all the inclination of mistreatment of gun owners under the law in CA as a broad concept and the gun show as an instance of malicious anti 2A mentality; that the need for incorporation is not just a relief from the instance itself but relief from pattern of abuse. They did not once mention that none of the approach taken by the county is at all common in the US, that their attitude and frame of thought in addressing gun shows and the common person with guns is neither backed up by experience nor even shared as an opinion by the actual mainstream. "Common sense" restriction is neither sense nor common.I am not as concerned about this stuff, though it is a little disappointing. The battle is more about simply getting the 2A incorporated against the states. Once that happens, then the 14A can be used even more effectively to address the issues you just brought up. As to the OC movement, as an example of what the licensing scheme of 12050 could become, consider that Tennessee has a single LTC - and doesn't matter if it's open or concealed. That addresses Gravedigger's concerns re: inadvertent open or concealed carry. Combine the OC and CCW portions of 12050 and make it Shall Issue... Once that's done, quietly attack portions of 12031... The license would instantly render the GFSZ stuff moot except to the criminals who wouldn't/couldn't get licensed anyway.

[CapS]

For me, I still see problems with the either/or scenario. When I carry, I just want to LOADED CARRY.


Gene has said somewhere else (I paraphrase) that the state will first of all be forced to choose between LOC and SICCW, and next have to give up the restrictions on BOTH forms of carry.

[Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, Gene.]

/Cap

[Theseus]

Don't get me wrong guys. I am not trying to say that everyone should OC or that everyone should CC.

I hope that neither of us will have to sacrifice.

I guess I am more concerned about that even if I get CCW how much a pain concealing an XD tactical would be...

[hoffmang]

That I must say was the one thing I was highly disappointed with in the Nordyke argument by our side. They did not mention at all the inclination of mistreatment of gun owners under the law in CA as a broad concept and the gun show as an instance of malicious anti 2A mentality; that the need for incorporation is not just a relief from the instance itself but relief from pattern of abuse.

I've been needing to explain how civil rights law interacts with the police for a while so let me try to do it briefly.

First, Don Kilmer specifically said in the very opening of his argument that without a state RKBA, the Nordyke panel may set the high and low bar for the right to keep and bear arms in California.

You need to read up on qualified immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity). The way oversimplified version is that if there is no right that's being violated then there is no harm or foul in police activity. If there should have been a right violated but its the first time that it has occurred in this Federal Appellate Circuit the officer has no liability that time. Anytime subsequent and there is no immunity.

This is much of the reason why the CGF recommends not open carrying unloaded today. If a LEO gives you a hard time Nordyke isn't binding and therefor you can't even sue under a 2A theory yet. Once Nordyke is binding, then you get to sue and that can set a precedent that an officer can't hassle you for simply exercising your right to UOC but all that happens to the officer is that he gets to be a part of the story of the case. Thereafter if an officer in the 9th Circuit hassles someone for UOC, his department can be on the hook for limited damages (usually $1) and repayment of attorney's fees (big $).

-Gene

[yellowfin]

OK, so Nordyke has to go through and the next case of gun owner harassment will go to the courts...all the way to the top again, or just within our area? And does it have to be for each type of gun owner harassment, or any type? It's going to be incredibly annoying having to list out every single possible disruption of RKBA if such is required--this state's legislators, bureacrats, and LE come up with more flavors of persecution, obstruction, hassel, intimidation, and confusion than the Cheesecake Factory. Does the incident have to occur after the Nordyke decision is rendered and on the books, or anything happening now? Since there are no penalties being dished out to the officer the first time around, it wouldn't be considered ex post facto against them, would it?

[TenSeven]

The likely major pushes after Nordyke is final are in no particular order:

Handgun Roster
Shall issue CCW
Semiautomatic Centerfire Rifles

We have a couple of creative ways in the hopper to go after 2 of the 3 above.

-Gene


Without having read the rest of this thread yet, I want to respond to this post by saying:



GO GO GO!!

Well done, and Thank You for your effort!!

[GarandFan]

I agree 100%
there are way too many laws that are impossible for the non calgunner to understand

Agreed as well!

Might someone kindly (and briefly) explain CAs "handgun roster", and when and how it came about? I generally understand that it's a list of "approved" firearms, based on childproofing/safety features/microstamping issues.

And if so, I'd strongly suggest that Heller (and Miller's) "common use" tests would be the avenue of attack. To deny the people the right to commonly-used defensive tools seems facially unconstitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any chance we can get the CCW information off the public record at some point?
I'm asking because of this case last year where a newspaper published the addresses of CCW holders in CA county...

[tango-52]

Is there any chance we can get the CCW information off the public record at some point?
I'm asking because of this case last year where a newspaper published the addresses of CCW holders in CA county...

Once we go Shall Issue, then there won't be a need to be able to find out who was issued. In some counties, only the connected get CCWs so we still need to be able to prove croyism by having access to those records.

[U2BassAce]

I see Shall Issue as a primary objective. If we aren't allowed to protect ourselves "in case of confrontation" (Heller @19) then the others won't help us in self-defense situations. Without your life, nothing else matters.

The criminals would cringe. Imagine if 500,000+ shall issue CCWs were handed out?

I agree what good is a non roster gun locked unloading in a locked case do you?

But they all should and will fall.

[U2BassAce]

For practical purposes it might be nice to see the AW ban lifted in California. Before the Feds have a chance pass their own. (not a slam dunk but still)

[Some Guy]

Should Nordyke be wrapped by Easter? When is the next step?

[sorensen440]

Should Nordyke be wrapped by Easter? When is the next step?

60-90 days was mentioned but could take up to a year

[Window_Seat]

Is there any chance we can get the CCW information off the public record at some point?
I'm asking because of this case last year where a newspaper published the addresses of CCW holders in CA county...

:excl:Is this a possibility? There is an issue currently going on in Oregon, but some of the Sheriffs are saying no (to giving addresses) and there's a court case on it IIRC. I'm certain that some of the publications here would want to make this happen. Before pursuing SICCW and other issues, would we want to make an attempt at safeguarding CCWs & similar credentials from the media elements prior to any favorable final rulemakings?:excl:

Erik; sees a "breaking in" process

[hvengel]

Heller basically said we're allowed to keep and bear arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. Yes, it is true that the scope of the Heller decision was in the home. But is it really a huge stretch of logic to extend the court's recognition beyond the threshold of my front door?

And, yes, that right probably only extends to loaded open carry. But I promise you that if people start asking their CLEOs if they want us carrying LOC or CCW, the answer is going to be (almost always) CCW. And that's how we'll start getting permits.

It might not even have to be a huge, public outcry. A few quiet conversations with (currently) non-issuing Sheriffs and CLEOs might just do it. Which will leave all the drama for the really hard-core anti-gun places like LA and SF.

Bingo give bulgron a cigar. Heller basically says we have a right to self defense and that this right includes using guns for that purpose. Since the question of bearing outside of the home was not before the Heller court the issue was not ruled on but the ruling strongly implied that this was a second amendment right. It was clear that they were considering the "in the home" question as covered under the "keep" part of the 2nd amendment and they made it clear during the arguments that they thought that "keep" and "bear" had distinct meanings and that both affected the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

The Heller ruling also said that concealed carry (IE, bearing hidden arms in public) was a legitimate area of regulation which implies that open carry (IE, bearing arms in public) is not. Since we have a right to use guns for self defense that means we have a right to bear arms in public (outside of the home) for self defense and if concealed carry is restricted (and requiring a license is a restriction - the court has consistently ruled that rights can not be licensed) then we must be allowed to open carry with at most very limited restrictions (IE. it might be permissible to restrict open carry in a court house or school for example) or the right is infringed.

In addition concealed carry restrictions go way back historically (some places had CCW restrictions as far back as the 18th century) but open carry restrictions are relatively new. In fact in the 18th century it was not uncommon for there to be laws that required adult males to be armed when in public (IE. compulsory open carry). If you go back 50 years open carry was legal and widely accepted in most states and the general attitude was that only bad guys concealed their weapons. That is open carry = good guy, concealed carry = bad guy is how this was traditionally viewed until very recently.

California open carry restrictions date to the late 1960's and were aimed directly at the Black Panthers. So there is also a race nexus in the open carry laws in California that I suspect will make them even easier to challenge.

Also remember what happened in Ohio with open/concealed carry. Unlike California, Ohio has a state constitutional right to arms provision. This had been interpreted as protecting open carry but also allowing the state to restrict concealed carry to the point of not allowing it at all. These rulings date back about 100 years to the early 1900s. In fact the language in those early 20th century rulings were along the lines of "as long as open carry in not restricted the state can restrict concealed carry even to the point of not allowing it at all since the right to be armed is still available through open carry".

But in the later half of the 20th century law enforcement in Ohio started hassling anyone who open carried by arresting them on trumped up charges for scaring the sheep (IE. causing a public disturbance). This was challenged in the 1990s and the state supreme court ruled that the tactics being used by the police were unconstitutional and were in fact civil rights violations since open carry was a constitutional right. This put an end to the practice of hassling open carriers in Ohio. At that point activists started holding open carry rallies and this forced the state legislature to pass a shall issue conceal carry law since they were more concerned about scaring the sheep than with peoples constitutional rights. Once the 2nd is incorporated we have basically set up the same situation here and the Ohio Supreme Court rulings can be used as persuasive precedent when this goes to court.

This is the direction that gets us shall issue in California not a direct challenge to the current CCW laws. The thing to keep in mind is if some court throws out the current CCW law the legislature could come back and make CCW totally against the law that this would likely stand up and we would actually be worse off than now. But once open carry is established as a constitutional right the legislature has fewer options. But I also think that bulgron is correct that we will see the local issuing authorities start issuing after the current open carry laws are struck down before we get movement from the legislature to formalize a shall issue system.

I think that the "what's next" question needs to be very carefully considered and I expect that the legal experts who are looking into this are doing just that. I am all for those legal experts deciding what should be challenged and in what order to give us the best long term outcome. After all the long term outcome is what really matters and we should set aside possible short term gains with the aim of getting the best long term outcome.

[Liberty1]

No, it is not a "License to carry" 12050 is pretty clear that the CLEO:

"may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the following formats:
(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. "

The term "either" makes it pretty clear that the 2 licenses are different. That being said, I would hope that any "shall issue" ruling or law would cover all of 12050 giving both OC and CCW devotees good news. I also suspect that most OCers would be quite happy to have CCW rights.

If (i) and (ii) were equal in where they applied then I would agree generally. But (i) is the only one available for the vast majority of the state.

I understand the nuances of 12050 as an administrative part of the penal code (explaining how issuance happens), and I won't say that you argument doesn't have some merit. But I rest my opinion on the actual exemptions of the criminal section language found in 12031, 12027, and 626.9 (as well as the fed school zone law) for my determination that mere possession of the license exempts the holder from the law's prohibition and that open carry is not proscribed.

12050 in its current state, with no strong 14th property right to have and no 2nd A. jurisprudence, like the right of self defense backing up it's issuance, may very well allow a Sheriff to revoke (and one did) for a license holder's lawful activity which that Sheriff didn't personally like (even though there were no restrictions printed on the license).

After incorporation, a Sheriff revoking for a license holder's otherwise lawful activity, holding hands with a black lady or open carrying peacefully, will be on very tenuous ground.

[Liberty1]

I still don't see how your argument is any better, open carry is already legal without a license, how would changing that to require a license be a good thing?

It is not better for LOC in the short term, I agree. Shall issue licenses to carry which exempt the holder from 12025 IS a better situation for most who will choose CC over OC (as is even true in Vermont and AK) and will dramatically improve the self-defense situation in CA over night.

I'm still with OC as a better mode of carry for comfort, deterrence, and desensitizing of shepple and police and will not rest politically until UOC & CC are both Rights and Vt. and Ak. style carry is the law of the whole county.

Oh, so I can be loaded if only I apply for permission from the State? Yeah, still not a win in my book. I should be able to OC loaded anyway.

Victory is the goal. Please look at "paths of least resistance" victories as being equivalent to the "soft underbelly" strategy of hitting North Africa and Italy to gain experience and some victories before going for the full enchilada at Normandy.

We also need to stay united (CCW, OLL, and LOC)!

[hoffmang]

OK, so Nordyke has to go through and the next case of gun owner harassment will go to the courts...all the way to the top again, or just within our area?
No and often it only barely goes to the court of appeals.


And does it have to be for each type of gun owner harassment, or any type?

No, but it has to be pretty clearly the type of issue that has happened before in the courts.


Does the incident have to occur after the Nordyke decision is rendered and on the books, or anything happening now?
Nordyke has to be final before the incident is litigated. It could happen sooner but that puts all sorts of procedural wrinkles that one just doesn't want (as it might allow a court to duck the issue.)


Since there are no penalties being dished out to the officer the first time around, it wouldn't be considered ex post facto against them, would it?
Kind of but that's not the way to analyze it. An intervening change in the law is just that. A ruling would be something like "though this wasn't an incorporated right at the time of the incident, the intervening decision means that Mr Smith had a right to be doing X - qualified immunity applies to this instance but officers should be aware they can't do Y when X occurs in the future."

-Gene

[hoffmang]

Though I agree that at the end of the day we want both shall issue CCW and loaded open carry, there is one argument that doesn't hold much weight.

If we were to only get shall issue CCW, CCW violations that are unintentional are not going to be able to be prosecuted in a post Incorporation state. Unintentional violation of "concealed" regulations of a fundamental right will be very hard for the state to prove that they serve a compelling interest as applied.

-Gene

[Theseus]

I still don't agree.

In my mind fighting 12031 is the ONLY way to truly forward the cause. When we get LOC as a RIGHT that does not require licensing then all those that wish for CC can LOC without a license. If they want us to hide them they have to make an offer we won't refuse. Hold our for unlicensed CC with "gun checking" at "sensitive" locations.

I might even argue make the CC process part fo the purchase of a handgun. It is the same criminal check. If you are legal to buy a handgun, then you are legal to CC.

I just don't agree with temporarily loosing a right to gain a "priviledge". Do I have any real control over it? No, but I can still complain as I play the game.

It is not better for LOC in the short term, I agree. Shall issue licenses to carry which exempt the holder from 12025 IS a better situation for most who will choose CC over OC (as is even true in Vermont and AK) and will dramatically improve the self-defense situation in CA over night.

I'm still with OC as a better mode of carry for comfort, deterrence, and desensitizing of shepple and police and will not rest politically until UOC & CC are both Rights and Vt. and Ak. style carry is the law of the whole county.

Victory is the goal. Please look at "paths of least resistance" victories as being equivalent to the "soft underbelly" strategy of hitting North Africa and Italy to gain experience and some victories before going for the full enchilada at Normandy.

We also need to stay united (CCW, OLL, and LOC)!

[Liberty1]

I can still complain...

Don't ever stop!!!

[garandguy10]

Do not be to dissappointed if Nordyke is not overturned. Do not count your chickens befor the eggs have hatched.

[hoffmang]

In my mind fighting 12031 is the ONLY way to truly forward the cause. When we get LOC as a RIGHT that does not require licensing then all those that wish for CC can LOC without a license.

Which is preferable:

1. Loaded open carry and no CCW for anyone.

2. Both shall issue CCW and LOC.

Going first to 12031 risks significantly being stuck in #1.

And on Nordyke - we're winning it one way or another - even if takes SCOTUS or SCOTUS taking a Chicago appeal instead. Losing Nordyke in the 9th (not very likely) helps set up a circuit split if SCOTUS doesn't just take a loss.

However, I predict we'll either have Incorporation in the 9th or Nordyke will be granted Cert and we'll win 5-4.

-Gene

[bulgron]

.... or Nordyke will be granted Cert and we'll win 5-4.

-Gene

Unless someone drops dead 'twixt then and now.

It would be very wise to not be too over-confident in this game.

As they say, "No battle plan ever survives the first encounter with the enemy." Also, "The plan is useless, but planning is essential."

This is a real battle we're in. One hopes the Right People have plans upon plans upon plans .....

[Theseus]

Which is preferable:

1. Loaded open carry and no CCW for anyone.

2. Both shall issue CCW and LOC.

Going first to 12031 risks significantly being stuck in #1.

-Gene

I doubt that even the State of California will allow #1 to stay. At that point even the anti's would be screaming to allow concealed carry and we as gun owners have the power to agree to it on our terms. . .

"Sure, well stop open carrying if you make CC shall-issue or unlicensed..."

I am not saying 12031 HAS to be first, because it in itself isn't as easy to strike as say the roster that will give us, as you point out, strong "equal protection" arguments.

I am pointing out mostly that 12031 for LOC if the only true power I think we have to negotiate true shall-issue or unlicensed CC because we will hold the true power and can make ourselves to look reasonable in the public.

But first and foremost, once we do get incorporation I think it would be prudent to try and work with legislature. Give them a chance to do the right thing first before we have to spend money in court.

[hoffmang]

I doubt that even the State of California will allow #1 to stay.

I don't like playing "doubt." I like putting Federal Courts in corners. I can easily see the legislature in my #1 above removing all CCW licensing and only leaving in affirmative defense exceptions for clear and present danger self defense (restraining order, stalker) where you still get arrested if found CCW. They'll basically be saying LOC or nothing - have a nice day!

Then we'll be harassed all the time as private property owners will post no guns signs and we will not be able to come onto their grounds LOC. LOC is pretty obvious and easy for them to enforce.

Think through the options before you let your personal passion for LOC get in the way of the political and social responses from the other side. Maybe we can force Ohio style but I'm not so sure and its not the state that I'm worried about.

-Gene

[Midian]

I might even argue make the CC process part of the purchase of a handgun. It is the same criminal check. If you are legal to buy a handgun, then you are legal to CC.



Well, that makes too much sense. Stop it. It's much more pleasant to have the gun owners in this state harassed by legislation.

And BTW, forgive me if I sound ignorant on the particulars here, and I am certainly not trying to antagonize the many NRA members here on this board, but where was the NRA when it was time to stand up for the California gun community when all of these asinine restrictions and Nannyisms were set into place? Did they roll over and play dead with things like the hi cap mag restriction, one handgun in 30 days, all of that BS?

Did someone have their feet to the fire on other issues or are they simply (forgive the pun) outgunned by the liberal hegemony in California?

[7x57]

I don't like playing "doubt."


Agreed. I'd prefer a game-theory like strategy of assuming the strongest opposition and planning accordingly.


I can easily see the legislature in my #1 above removing all CCW licensing and only leaving in affirmative defense exceptions for clear and present danger self defense (restraining order, stalker) where you still get arrested if found CCW. They'll basically be saying LOC or nothing - have a nice day!


Are you at liberty to explain more of your reasons? I personally find more compelling the argument that LOC will compel shall-issue CCW just so we don't do LOC so much, but I place no confidence in my judgment. I also agree that LOC w/o shall-issue CCW is a problem precisely for the reason you say--LOC is an invitation to harassment, and even if eventually that harassment can be attacked in court it means that only those with the means to sue can carry at all. So...if what you say is a danger, I'd much prefer your strategy. I'd just like to know more about why you see a liklihood that a bunch of OC'ers won't compel the legislature to let them CC just so there are fewer OC'ers.

I personally want OC, but mostly for hiking. When I am in bear or cat country I want to carry, I want to carry large magnum revolvers that are not practical to conceal and I want to carry openly where I can draw the most easily. I also want the option to carry a long gun so I can accept the inconvenience if I prefer to have enough gun, and I want to do this without drama in, say, LA county.

In town, I'm OK with CC, but that's because protection against two-legged predators is significantly different and because that's where, for a generation at least, I'm exposed to a much greater risk of harassment.


Maybe we can force Ohio style but I'm not so sure and its not the state that I'm worried about.


OK, I guess I probably think in terms of CA and not the federal courts. That probably does change things a lot and I don't know how to evaluate how it changes.

7x57

[hoffmang]

And BTW, forgive me if I sound ignorant on the particulars here, and I am certainly not trying to antagonize the many NRA members here on this board, but where was the NRA when it was time to stand up for the California gun community when all of these asinine restrictions and Nannyisms were set into place? Did they roll over and play dead with things like the hi cap mag restriction, one handgun in 30 days, all of that BS?

Did someone have their feet to the fire on other issues or are they simply (forgive the pun) outgunned by the liberal hegemony in California?

They were right there and the reality is that they couldn't muster the votes or the veto. We were one vote away from stopping SB-23 but we couldn't. You'll note that NRA sued immediately on both Roberti Roos and SB-23. They were doing what they could at the time with the numbers our voters give them.

The good news since is that that was before the Democratic congress was slaughtered over the Federal AW ban. That mass defeat still stings on that side of the aisle - even here.

-Gene

[hoffmang]

But first and foremost, once we do get incorporation I think it would be prudent to try and work with legislature. Give them a chance to do the right thing first before we have to spend money in court.

:smilielol5: I'll remember to start typing again after I can catch my breath..



There are 2 and only 2 ways we can get pro-gun legislation in this state.

1. It's minor enough that no one on the other side cares. There are lots of good little things that we have gotten and will keep getting.

2. We have the legislature over a barrel.

AB-2728 - They were hosed. Opposing the "do not disarm during state of emergency" was political suicide.

The only way we'll get the legislature to do what we want is to have a law struck or a case in progress that makes it clear the law is going down. Due to all the "help" we've had in the past from groups supposedly on our side, we can hardly even get Republicans to carry bills in either category above.

Our legislature is so far from rational it isn't funny and term limits have made it worse. Now they don't even remember the pain we cause them in the past.

-Gene

[hoffmang]

Are you at liberty to explain more of your reasons? I personally find more compelling the argument that LOC will compel shall-issue CCW just so we don't do LOC so much, but I place no confidence in my judgment.

I'll try to say it again.

The legislature can easily end all CCW issuance. They will only have the binary choice of shall issue or no issue. Anything in between will fail on heightened equal protection scrutiny.

If they choose no issue and allow/have 12031 struck by courts then LOC will be the exercise of "bear." However private property owners will then be totally free to prohibit you from bringing your LOC or UOC firearm on their premises. If the only way we can bear is open, you'll see lots and lots of private property owners ban carry. Think "whites only." Remember we're the minority here. It'll be wonderful (excuse the sarcasm.) We'll have an unfettered right to bear arms that is practically useless since you can't carry where you're going.

Contrast with forced shall issue. Restaurants, movie theaters, malls, etc. will not have complaints from the majority that they don't like "that" in here. No signs go up and pragmatically we can actually defend ourselves.

Once we get shall issue CCW, we can absolutely challenge 12031 - especially by using long guns to do it.

My point is this. As much as OC'ers want to teach the sheep that guns aren't scary, that education isn't worth practically disarming folks when there is a well understood path to being able to end up with both.

I grew up in a state that was LOC and no CCW then. It was a core southern state - NC. Pro-gun people were still weirded out by open carry.

Let's secure CCW for all and then secure LOC because I do not think we can do the reverse and the risks in reverse are very high.

-Gene

[Paladin]

My 2 cents, purely from a public policy perspective, not from a legal strategy one, so, "Right People", do what you think wisest.

In VERY brief, my top priority is "Shall Issue" Right-to-Carry/CCW. Why? (1) In the past 25+ years, I can only think of one time in one county in CA where someone would have wanted an AW, and even there they probably could have gotten by w/just a LAR or bolt rifle w/10 rnd Detachable Box Magazines, so they really didn't need an AW. That was the Rodney King riots in LA County.

Now compare that to CCW: people are getting shot, murdered, raped, or beaten to the point of permanent brain damage/paralyzed/coma/etc (i.e., less than murder/manslaughter), throughout the state every day of every week of every month of every year of every decade! And unlike AWs, there is NO VIABLE substitute for a CCW!

(2) Every state that has passed Shall Issue since the modern movement began (w/Marion Hammer of the NRA in FL back in '86) has seen a reduction of violent crime in their state. Does anyone have any facts showing that crime of any sort increased after the '94 federal AWB? Or how about stats showing that it has gone down in states w/o state level AWBs after the fed AWB sunset in '04?

And last, God bless the "Right People" on our side who are working together so that law-abiding Americans in the PRK may be able to regain/exercise their 2nd A RKBA! With the internet, CGN/CGF, and the NRA/CalNRA I am more optimistic about our 2nd A rights in this state now than I have been in decades.

ETA: Bill and Gene, don't spill the beans. We can wait and we don't want to inadvertently aid the antis.

Outta here 'til next weekend!

[7x57]

The legislature can easily end all CCW issuance. They will only have the binary choice of shall issue or no issue. Anything in between will fail on heightened equal protection scrutiny.


OK, I think I missed the point that partial-issue would probably be a non-starter.


If they choose no issue and allow/have 12031 struck by courts then LOC will be the exercise of "bear."


I guess my question is: what is the flaw in the argument that they'll be happy with CCW just so fewer people OC? I am not arguing the point, just trying to understand the calculation you are making.

Granted, I can see that the effort to make the point could get a lot of people harassed or in jail, so if the fight is likely to be that hard it would still make your point even if ultimately winnable.

I'm a peaceable sort of guy who (vainly) expects others to be similarly polite, and so tend to be against protesters automatically. On that alone I prefer whatever route get it done with the least drama.

Granted, OC'ers probably won't be the sorts of protesters I often see where my main thought is simply "go away and come back and talk when you've actually decided to bathe for a change."


However private property owners will then be totally free to prohibit you from bringing your LOC or UOC firearm on their premises.


I agree that's very bad--though in a better world they'd then be extremely liable for the safety of every person on their property. If that liability were severe enough then this would not happen except in a few genuinely sensitive places that are actually well (and expensively) protected. I suppose that liability won't actually happen though.


Once we get shall issue CCW, we can absolutely challenge 12031 - especially by using long guns to do it.


I heard you say that before, and I'm happy to hear about it. Though I wonder what the danger is of the courts saying "well, you don't have the right to carry *any* weapon for *any* reason, and you can carry handguns, so we don't have to allow long guns as well." Perhaps it's legally not feasible for them to take that line, but I can't judge sort of thing.


My point is this. As much as OC'ers want to teach the sheep that guns aren't scary, that education isn't worth practically disarming folks when there is a well understood path to being able to end up with both.


This is my major argument to prefer CCW as an early priority. It seems to help a lot more people a lot sooner than almost anything else. It should also increase our ranks a bit, because a lot of people who would not OC because of social pressure will probably be willing to CC for safety. That seems like it builds our numbers for whatever the next step is.


Let's secure CCW for all and then secure LOC because I do not think we can do the reverse and the risks in reverse are very high.


I accept the conclusion--I just want to understand the logic well enough to see *why* it is that way, as much as I can.

7x57

[CCWFacts]

Agreed. I'd prefer a game-theory like strategy of assuming the strongest opposition and planning accordingly.

I totally agree with that. I want to win. For me, winning means moving CA's gun situation to be somewhere within the spectrum from Nevada (shall-issue, no other restrictions) to Vermont (only under Federal gun law). Whatever will get us there with the least risk, in the shortest time, is the way to get there, taking into account the courts, politics and everything else.

[CCWFacts]

In VERY brief, my top priority is "Shall Issue" Right-to-Carry/CCW. Why? (1) In the past 25+ years, I can only think of one time in one county in CA where someone would have wanted an AW, and even there they probably could have gotten by w/just a LAR or bolt rifle w/10 rnd Detachable Box Magazines, so they really didn't need an AW. That was the Rodney King riots in LA County.

Now compare that to CCW: people are getting shot, murdered, raped, or beaten to the point of permanent brain damage/paralyzed/coma/etc (i.e., less than murder/manslaughter), throughout the state every day of every week of every month of every year of every decade! And unlike AWs, there is NO VIABLE substitute for a CCW!

I agree 100% with that. There is no self-defense scenario you can dream of where an AW would save a live that couldn't be saved with many of the countless other non-AW alternatives available. Even if there's a crowd outside my house wanting to burn it down, I can fire and keep loaded a pump-action shotty fast enough, or I can use a lever action, or a semi-auto with 10-round mags. Some training and practice will more than make up for lack of an authentic detachable-mag AR-15.

In contrast, there is no viable substitute for CCWs. UOC isn't a substitute. Breaking the law (CCWing sans permit) is not wise. There's nothing and our lack of shall-issue is costing lives every single day.

[hoffmang]

I guess my question is: what is the flaw in the argument that they'll be happy with CCW just so fewer people OC? I am not arguing the point, just trying to understand the calculation you are making.


The people who care against us in the legislature are not against gun owners - they are against guns. As such, they'll happily force us to open carry and suffer the slings and arrows of the majority that is afraid of us knowing that it will dissuade and demoralize us from carrying.

Let's say we go after loaded open carry in the court first and only as Theseus has advocated. Once we win that, we will have no leverage to force shall issue CCW. In fact, we might even lose the equal protection argument against "may issue" once we have the unfettered right to LOC. The other side will say that regulations on CCW are presumptively valid per Heller and if we want to exercise our right to bear we have to open carry.

It's a neat concept to be able to LOC everywhere in theory, but personally I prefer being armed to protect myself without having to weigh in the calculus whether where I'm going will ostracize me for carrying. That occurs if LOC is the only option. I'd much prefer a world where I can choose open or concealed just like I choose blue jeans or a suit and tie. Some destinations dictate which choice one should make and those sorts of practical issues are the difference between a real right to self defense and a political poster.

-Gene

[mblat]

In VERY brief, my top priority is "Shall Issue" Right-to-Carry/CCW. Why? (1) In the past 25+ years, I can only think of one time in one county in CA where someone would have wanted an AW, and even there they probably could have gotten by w/just a LAR or bolt rifle w/10 rnd Detachable Box Magazines, so they really didn't need an AW. That was the Rodney King riots in LA County.

Now compare that to CCW: people are getting shot, murdered, raped, or beaten to the point of permanent brain damage/paralyzed/coma/etc (i.e., less than murder/manslaughter), throughout the state every day of every week of every month of every year of every decade! And unlike AWs, there is NO VIABLE substitute for a CCW!


+100. Very well put. I WANT to have an AW, but I don't really NEED one, especially with OLL being so close to "real thing".
I NEED CCW.

[SwissFluCase]

It's a neat concept to be able to LOC everywhere in theory, but personally I prefer being armed to protect myself without having to weigh in the calculus whether where I'm going will ostracize me for carrying. That occurs if LOC is the only option. I'd much prefer a world where I can choose open or concealed just like I choose blue jeans or a suit and tie. Some destinations dictate which choice one should make and those sorts of practical issues are the difference between a real right to self defense and a political poster.

-Gene

Bingo. CCW is everyday practical. LOC is icing on the cake.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[Liberty1]

I WANT to have an AW, but I don't really NEED one...

Yes you do to do your militia duty!

[Theseus]

Well, I think that we can continue to have this academic debate, but the truth is that at some point a choice will have to be made.

I hope that when that choice is made we aren't sacrificing one right needlessly.

The people who care against us in the legislature are not against gun owners - they are against guns. As such, they'll happily force us to open carry and suffer the slings and arrows of the majority that is afraid of us knowing that it will dissuade and demoralize us from carrying.

Let's say we go after loaded open carry in the court first and only as Theseus has advocated. Once we win that, we will have no leverage to force shall issue CCW. In fact, we might even lose the equal protection argument against "may issue" once we have the unfettered right to LOC. The other side will say that regulations on CCW are presumptively valid per Heller and if we want to exercise our right to bear we have to open carry.

It's a neat concept to be able to LOC everywhere in theory, but personally I prefer being armed to protect myself without having to weigh in the calculus whether where I'm going will ostracize me for carrying. That occurs if LOC is the only option. I'd much prefer a world where I can choose open or concealed just like I choose blue jeans or a suit and tie. Some destinations dictate which choice one should make and those sorts of practical issues are the difference between a real right to self defense and a political poster.

-Gene

[N6ATF]

It's 4 days before Thanksgiving last year.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=133664

:dupe:

[383green]

Gene's argument in favor of going after shall-issue first and then going after LOC sounds reasonable and compelling to me.

I think I understand Theseus' desire to be able to LOC without people around him freaking out, and I see that as a desirable goal, but I think it'll take a while to get to that point. As I recall from my one trip to Phoenix, AZ, the state has LOC, yet lots of metropolitan businesses choose to exclude LOC'ers. Gene makes a good point that achieving recognition of a right to LOC first may result in all of us being able to carry our guns, yet not having anywhere to go when doing so.

I see some wisdom in Gene's argument that going after shall-issue first doesn't necessarily harm the ability to go after LOC second, while going after LOC first might take shall-issue off the table.

Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I don't think that Theseus' suggestion of trying to get legislature to work with us would work. I think that his suggestion is based on the generous assumption that our legislators are rational, intelligent and selfless like he is... but I think that enough of them are so thoroughly blinded by anti-gun FUD and rhetoric that they would never consider working with pro-gun folks, even if anybody with half a brain could see that the courts have put the writing on the wall, and the anti-gun sentiments were doomed to failure. Just look at how adamantly the powers-that-be in D.C. are defying the Heller ruling.

I, too, want unlicensed LOC without worrying about wandering through a school zone or other unmarked "sensitive place" in my daily travels. However, I think that getting shall-issue CCW first will be a better pragmatic approach. For that matter, I don't believe that a permit should be necessary for a law-abiding citizen to carry either loaded or concealed, but I view shall-issue CCW as the fastest way to give law-abiding Californians the ability to protect themselves against violent criminals, and based on Gene's argument, the lowest-risk way, too. While LOC without stigma or unlawful repression from unfriendly LE agencies is the desirable end-goal, I just see that as requiring a lot more time, effort and pain than achieving shall-issue CCW post-Nordyke. Without shall-issue CCW arriving first, I think the body count would be higher by the time that goal could be reached.

Not that it necessarily means anything to anybody, but I'll pledge here that I'll continue to morally and financially support reasonable efforts to get unlicensed LOC for law-abiding Californians, even after I finally have a CCW permit in my wallet and a firearm hidden away on my person. I've also already stated that I'll either participate in the Theseus/Anderson benefit dinner or donate at least an equivalent amount of money to where it'll help.

Theseus, although I'm disagreeing with your opinion about how to prioritize these issues post-Nordyke, I do believe in what you're trying to achieve and I'll try to help you out in your upcoming legal fight, too, despite being pretty deeply in debt myself at the moment.

[nick]

Yes you do to do your militia duty!

Thank you!

[bwiese]

383,

Yes good writeup - we need to clarify "social goals" from "legal goals". Those two do not always track each other and sometimes can even be a bit exclusive of each other. Sometimes purity and practicality of achievement conflict.

In a perfectly pretty world, nobody flinches when we walk outdoors with a sixgun strapped on. (Hey, I love hiigh-tech ARs but I'm a wheelgun guy.)

That world is a long way off. I'd much rather have one under my coat and not have to worry whether or not someone cares - and that if he even cared, it'd be irrelevant.

[mblat]

Originally Posted by mblat View Post
I WANT to have an AW, but I don't really NEED one...
Yes you do to do your militia duty!

What prevents me from doing it with my M1A? I give you it doesn't have flash hider ( like it makes any difference ) - but it can be easily fixed when time comes :chris:

[383green]

Yes you do to do your militia duty!

Well, I think I should have the right to purchase, keep, bear, and practice with an M16 for that purpose. And claymores and grenades, too, for that matter... though I would personally just stick with the select-fire rifle, because explosives frighten me. ;)

[nick]

What prevents me from doing it with my M1A? I give you it doesn't have flash hider ( like it makes any difference ) - but it can be easily fixed when time comes :chris:

I'd say he was talking about real assault rifles, not what the morons in CA legislature think they are.

[yellowfin]

The people who care against us in the legislature are not against gun owners - they are against guns.
I personally HIGHLY doubt that. If they could outlaw voting against them they'd do that, but they can't so they'll gladly do as much as they can to provide as much incentive as possible to make people who are politically opposed to them--namely gun owners--leave the state. And it's worked all too well. It's simple, blatant bullying. Having come here fresh out of the free world every time I see mention of the hundreds of idiotic restrictions on my 2A rights that only happen here and only happen to me because I have the inconvenience of having to be here, I see every single one of them having "PS, it's because we hate your kind here in CA" tacked on. Doesn't happen to the sheep content to buy shoes, video games, surfboards, whatever...only us.

There can be no other reason.

[383green]

we need to clarify "social goals" from "legal goals". Those two do not always track each other and sometimes can even be a bit exclusive of each other.

I hadn't thought of it quite so clearly as you just put it, but you're dead-on there. I see benefit in maximizing the number of law-abiding Californians who gain the ability to protect themselves as soon as possible. There are people who are much more likely to need to protect themselves than I am. Even though I might choose to openly strap on an M1911 a half second after the legal approval for doing so was announced, even knowing that I might end up fighting for that right in court later, there are plenty of folks who are more likely to need to protect themselves, but less likely to avail themselves of the tools to achieve that under those circumstances. I'm a 240 pound guy with a bad attitude, living in a reasonably safe area, working at home often, and not straying into dangerous areas much in my daily travels. Somewhere there's some 100 pound lady whose financial circumstances make her live, work and travel in bad places at bad times. She needs to be able to defend herself a lot more than I do, and I want to take the approach that gives her the opportunity to choose to do so as soon as possible, even if I have to wait a bit longer to achieve my own personal desires.

[CCWFacts]

If they could outlaw voting against them they'd do that, but they can't so they'll gladly do as much as they can to provide as much incentive as possible to make people who are politically opposed to them--namely gun owners--leave the state. And it's worked all too well.

Right, gun ownership is linked to people who have a bunch of other beliefs, like self-reliance, low taxes, freedom in general, conservative views in general, etc. They can't pass a law banning people with those horrible icky beliefs from voting, but they can pass laws taking their guns away and hopefully drive them out of the state. That's what the AWB and all that stuff is about. That's why they're willing to fight so hard against us. That, plus racist fears about armed minorities.

We'll win through the courts, just like schools in the South were desegregated only through the courts.

[mblat]

Bluh.... really why are we arguing about this?
It is fairly clear that from practical point of view the largest NEED from gun rights point of view is CCW.
There are thousands upon thousands gun owners who will never ever buy AR15 or AK47 or M16. But very many of them would like an opportunity to carry snub-nose 5 shot .38 in there purse...... or LCP in the back pocket.
When you compare how many people can make practical use of CCW vs. flash hider/pistol grip on AR15 - it wouldn't be even close.
For me personally AWB is offensive because is it totally and utterly useless law that doesn't serve ANY purpose what so ever EXCEPT to infringe on my rights...... However from practical point of view - everything I could do with "free state" version of assult weapon I can do with what I have.
CCW on other hand I could use today. My neighbourhood ( considered to be VERY up-scale) is experiencing somewhat of crime wave. I would love to be able to put gun into my wife purse...... and there is nothing that can come close as substitute.
.

[nobody_special]

You can't publish a paper for profit without a business license that the state is compelled to give you.
We've had this discussion before... the requisite business license is not a license to operate a newspaper, and in general licenses may not be required for the exercise of a fundamental right. If the state wants to license people who make a profit in some enterprise which involves bearing arms, that's fine. However, the right to (openly) carry itself can not be subject to licensing unless it is treated very differently from other enumerated rights.
Once we get shall issue CCW, we can absolutely challenge 12031 - especially by using long guns to do it.
I'm not sure what the challenge would be. I'm not aware of any distinction between handguns and long guns in 12031. The argument that PC12031 infringes upon the right to bear, even with shall-issue, is IMO quite valid... and that holds for handguns as well as long guns.
My point is this. As much as OC'ers want to teach the sheep that guns aren't scary, that education isn't worth practically disarming folks when there is a well understood path to being able to end up with both.
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but... sometimes I'm confused because you appear to suggest that the right to bear may still be subject to licensing in all forms.

Even if concealed carry is a more socially acceptable option, unlicensed LOC is worth fighting for. It's good to have the choice. Consider a situation where one's safety is suddenly in jeopardy (bad breakup, riot, earthquake looting, gang threats, whatever). If that person does not already have a carry permit, they are effectively disarmed. One does not obtain a CC permit overnight, correct?

Never mind that the cost of California CC permits is discriminatory.

Besides that, I think it's important to have unlicensed LOC simply to avoid undermining the Constitution by adding yet another exception to the enumerated rights.

[hoffmang]

Not that it necessarily means anything to anybody, but I'll pledge here that I'll continue to morally and financially support reasonable efforts to get unlicensed LOC for law-abiding Californians, even after I finally have a CCW permit in my wallet and a firearm hidden away on my person. I've also already stated that I'll either participate in the Theseus/Anderson benefit dinner or donate at least an equivalent amount of money to where it'll help.

I'd like to second this. At no point am I saying that I rest once shall issue CCW is defacto and LOC isn't allowed.



I'm not sure what the challenge would be. I'm not aware of any distinction between handguns and long guns in 12031. The argument that PC12031 infringes upon the right to bear, even with shall-issue, is IMO quite valid... and that holds for handguns as well as long guns.

Assume shall issue CCW. How do you carry a loaded long gun under the current Penal Code? Is there a place on the license for a long gun? (sarcasm.)


That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but... sometimes I'm confused because you appear to suggest that the right to bear may still be subject to licensing in all forms.

We may agree that the correct analysis is that there should not be licensing to exercise a fundamental right. However, you gloss over lots of places where fundamental rights are interfered with left and right by government. Governments are free to exercise discriminatory taxes (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_90_29/) on speech based on medium. Governments routinely license the freedom of assembly.

My point is this. You can say all you want that fundamental rights should not require a license but you aren't being realistic about the political climate in California/the 9th Circuit and the fact that at some point its just not a strong enough issue for SCOTUS to care. Practical politics may very well beat purity here - aka if the license is cheap and easy we may be stuck with it. I wish it weren't so, but it has to be in the calculus or you aren't prepared for the contours of the battlefield in California.

Blacks should have been free to live in white neighborhoods in Louisiana starting in the 1970's, but we all know what the practical reality is. Same for their right to equal treatment under the law - just ask Cory Maye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye) how that's going.

-Gene

[nobody_special]

Assume shall issue CCW. How do you carry a loaded long gun under the current Penal Code? Is there a place on the license for a long gun? (sarcasm.)
Implicit in that argument is the assumption that the right to bear extends to long guns. If it is not realistic to expect the right to LOC handguns in the California/9th Circuit political climate, why is it realistic to expect that for long guns?

[Theseus]

I think I understand Theseus' desire to be able to LOC without people around him freaking out...

Ok, this isn't my issue, really. I could care less if people are freaking out, that is there problem, not mine. I want loaded OC without a license requirement.

Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I don't think that Theseus' suggestion of trying to get legislature to work with us would work.

My suggestion is not thinking that we are going to hold hands and be friends, but if we get incorporation I think we should at least ATTEMPT to see if they will change their tune. If not I am all for cramming it down their.....

Theseus, although I'm disagreeing with your opinion about how to prioritize these issues post-Nordyke, I do believe in what you're trying to achieve and I'll try to help you out in your upcoming legal fight, too, despite being pretty deeply in debt myself at the moment.

I am almost wondering if we are talking the same thing and we just don't realize it. . . I want shall-issue CC, better yet no licensed CC, but I will not sacrifice OC to achieve it and feel that OC might be the best avenue to achieve it. If the courts will roll over all of these issues without using OC as a tool to encite, then fine I will do my dance just the same. The end is more important than the means.

[Paladin]

Back again b/c I remembered something this morning.

The City of Berkeley has banned the possession of semi auto long guns (Division VIII "Weapons," Chapter 13.74 "Ban on Sale and Possession of Semiautomatic Weapons" .pdf available at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=7134). The "Right People" should also have on their "To Sue" list various unconstitutional county and city ordinances. After the first few fall, letters to county counsel/city attorneys would probably be all that would be necessary to get those those various ordinances repealed.

[aileron]

+100. Very well put. I WANT to have an AW, but I don't really NEED one, especially with OLL being so close to "real thing".
I NEED CCW.


Yes you do to do your militia duty!

Correct, plus if there is another North Hollywood shootout and your stuck in the middle that 10 round clip in an M1A is going to do wonders for you. BTW, the police grabbed AR-15's from a local gun store to try and quell the bastards.

Or if there is a Mubai attack and your in the middle.

Or if the government turns on its people. (The founders number one concern, that puts it at the top of the list for need.)

AR-15 rifles are easier for women to use, so what if its a women stuck in the middle.

How about a disabled person? AR-15 rifles are well thought out ergonomically and easier to use and load than a lot of other bigger clunkier weapons of the past.

Don't second guess need.

[mblat]

Correct, plus if there is another North Hollywood shootout and your stuck in the middle that 10 round clip in an M1A is going to do wonders for you. BTW, the police grabbed AR-15's from a local gun store to try and quell the bastards.

Or if there is a Mubai attack and your in the middle.

Or if the government turns on its people. (The founders number one concern, that puts it at the top of the list for need.)

AR-15 rifles are easier for women to use, so what if its a women stuck in the middle.

How about a disabled person? AR-15 rifles are well thought out ergonomically and easier to use and load than a lot of other bigger clunkier weapons of the past.

Don't second guess need.

First of all I have high-capacity mags for my M1A..... so not 10 rounders, but 20. Besides..... I also have AK and 30 rounds mags for it. The main reason I have sold all my OLL ARs is the fact that I don't have high-cap mags for it and I am not about to play stupid games with it.
So in North Hollywood type situation I will take 20 rounds of .308 or 30 of 7.62x39. If your argument is that it isn't sufficient we will have to agree to disagree.
Third Mumbay and North Hollywood or me having to slag it out against evil government is all very hypothetical. I am not saying it will not happened ever. I am saying that having my "assault weapon" with me outside of my house is very limited. I live in a big city and can't quite see myself going to lunch caring ANY rifle with me. However, probability of me (or my wife) having defending ourselves against common criminal is much higher than any of the above.
I will not carry M16 (even if I could buy one) with me, short of complete societal breakdown. I will carry nice single stack 9 mm or even .380, given an opportunity.
I will support all efforts to repeal AWB. I will gladly remove MonsterMan grip from my AK and will even more gladly go buy more high-cap mags.
However, this is all nice bonuses. What I have now in the rifle department is more than sufficient for any reasonable scenario.
What I have for my personal protection ( tear gas and black belt i) isn't. I am in Vegas now for business and I am carrying NOW. I NEED this level of protection in my home town way before I need to go and spend $1000 on uber-cool AR.

[7x57]

omewhere there's some 100 pound lady whose financial circumstances make her live, work and travel in bad places at bad times. She needs to be able to defend herself a lot more than I do, and I want to take the approach that gives her the opportunity to choose to do so as soon as possible, even if I have to wait a bit longer to achieve my own personal desires.

This is a terribly important point. Gun owners are and will be portrayed as selfishly wanting their dangerous toys and not caring about the risk to others. That is the logic by which gun ownership went away in Britain, Australia, and so on.

I think that should be attacked directly. We should prefer asking for greater rights for others above asking for them for ourselves, because it gives the like to the "selfish gun owner" meme and because it expands the pool. In the long run, it's a win for us too.

7x57

[7x57]

That, plus racist fears about armed minorities.


At some point, I also would like to attack that directly. Gun control is inherently discriminatory and racist, it always has been and it still is. But attacking that point means directly attacking the fear of young black men with guns. And overcoming that fear means putting the idea that inanimate objects like guns are the problem to the sword once and for all. All the dangerous young black men have all the guns they want already, just as for other criminals--if we can make that point in that context, we've won.

There is also the problem of people becoming criminals just to get some protection from those who are really dangerous--the last thing we want to do is take other avenues of safety away from black men who *want* to obey the law but see joining a gang or at least obtaining an illegal weapon as the only way to survive. Making people choose between crime and safety is despicable no matter who it is, but we have to work hard to make that case.

Gun control is based on fear, and the effect is discrimination, always. At some appropriate point we have to attack the biggest fears directly, and the result will be less discrimination. It will also make real the American ideal of self-reliance to people who do not believe that they can be now.

The question is, when and how does one make such an incendiary case?

7x57

[SwissFluCase]

This is a terribly important point. Gun owners are and will be portrayed as selfishly wanting their dangerous toys and not caring about the risk to others. That is the logic by which gun ownership went away in Britain, Australia, and so on.

I think that should be attacked directly. We should prefer asking for greater rights for others above asking for them for ourselves, because it gives the like to the "selfish gun owner" meme and because it expands the pool. In the long run, it's a win for us too.

7x57

We are far more likely in this state to need our AWs to preserve order and protect ourselves if there is a Katrina like episode than to resist our government turning on us. That is the whole reason why confiscation during emergencies was outlawed. We do live in earthquake country, after all. I consider having a state of the art rifle an absolute necessity, not only for my own safety, but for the general safety of the community!

Double for CCW!

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[7x57]

I consider having a state of the art rifle an absolute necessity, not only for my own safety, but for the general safety of the community!

Double for CCW!


Fine. I don't disagree, but that will not be the perception. My point was to attack the perception of selfishness, not the reality, because the perception itself is a big problem. We need to be *seen* to be asking for things that other people need more than we do.

7x57

[yellowfin]

We are far more likely in this state to need our AWs to preserve order and protect ourselves if there is a Katrina like episode than to resist our government turning on us.Who says those would be separate events?

[nick]

After the first few fall, letters to county counsel/city attorneys would probably be all that would be necessary to get those those various ordinances repealed.

I doubt it. They don't mind wasting their constituents' money for the cause.

[nick]

Who says those would be separate events?

Touche.

[SwissFluCase]

Fine. I don't disagree, but that will not be the perception. My point was to attack the perception of selfishness, not the reality, because the perception itself is a big problem. We need to be *seen* to be asking for things that other people need more than we do.

7x57

7x57, I actually do agree with you. Most of the people in my world aren't so worried about street crime, as we live in a very mellow area. They are worried about social breakdown, so AWs are also on the yet to be gun owner's want list. CCW is probably more practical in any case, and should take priority. They do want both of these items, however, so in my view this is for them as much as for me.

I also know that the antis do consider us to be compulsive hoarders, and view our firearms ownership as something dirty and selfish, like collecting porn. I am not doing this to make my collection bigger. This is about freedom. After your main rifle and pistol, the rest are just toys. I am going to start shrinking my collection, and putting some of that money into the fight.

*MY* interest in gun rights is very simple: I want the relationship between the citizens and the government to change. Imagine a world where the police and military have exactly the same arms and training just as anyone else. Our governemnt would be a lot less willing to treat the citizens in an arbitrary manner if most people were carrying. It would, in effect, make the citizens the government again. No knock warrants? Goodbye.

So in effect, I am fighting for civil liberties and freedom. This is what turns anti gun liberals into 2nd amendment supporters. "YOU have the right to carry a gun" is a powerful statement to them. That SIG 550 I want would be a reward for a fight well fought, not the goal in and of itself.

We're changing the country in a pretty major way, here.

I am multitasking at the moment, so I hope my position makes sense.

Regards,

SwissFluCase

[SwissFluCase]

Who says those would be separate events?

Point taken. ;)

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[yellowfin]

The question is, when and how does one make such an incendiary case? How? By telling the truth start to finish just as you and I have. Do it when there's public attention on the politicians you wish to target, bring it up when they're either banging drums on the issue or even better when they're taking heat for something else that could have them on the chopping block. We're waiting, waiting, waiting, for some hypothetical situation where it'd be to our maximum convenience. How about do it when it's really, really inconvenient for them?

Take the recent election, where the person from Illinois kept dead quiet about the 2A issue for months and when absolutely necessary gave a 5 second BS soundbite. He covered up the ugly truth because he would lose on it. BIGTIME. He got away with that. What should have happened is it should have been dragged up right front and center and hammered on 24/7 with ever single embarassing detail, putting him and the whole anti 2A movement on trial. Think of it like a 5 year old girl standing up in the middle of church and devulging, in a 5 year old's vocabulary of course, in vivid minute by minute detail what she saw mommy doing with the 17 year old football player next door on the couch last night and the afternoon before.

We need to be BRUTAL with them. The lies need to not only be squashed, but used to crucify the people pushing them. Be as honest as possible using concepts even the simplest of the public clearly understand. Politicians lie! Politicians and special interest groups want power! They play on emotions and fears of people who don't know any better! This is all under the big category of DUH. Bring up their embarassing failures they use this big sham to cover then explain the misdirection. It's not hard, it just doesn't get said.

[nick]

I like this thread :)

And yes, it's not being said enough. Not nearly enough.

[aileron]

First of all I have high-capacity mags for my M1A..... so not 10 rounders, but 20. Besides..... I also have AK and 30 rounds mags for it. The main reason I have sold all my OLL ARs is the fact that I don't have high-cap mags for it and I am not about to play stupid games with it.
So in North Hollywood type situation I will take 20 rounds of .308 or 30 of 7.62x39. If your argument is that it isn't sufficient we will have to agree to disagree.
Third Mumbay and North Hollywood or me having to slag it out against evil government is all very hypothetical. I am not saying it will not happened ever. I am saying that having my "assault weapon" with me outside of my house is very limited.....

Your one person, who happens to be in the game at an age where you could get high capacity magazines. Good on you... and yes, highly improbable that you would ever need them for real. Though we know that no one here that came to the game late can get normal capacity magazines.

Im suggesting that any one of our needs is not what defines others needs. That its dangerous to assume our own needs define others needs. You think an AR-15 is a toy... I think its highly practical for young and old ladies and old men, and people with disabilities to operate.

There is no guarantee that we will continue to be a prosperous nation, because of which, it is relatively safe to live in.

There is no guarantee that we will remain free.

Because of that, we that are free, are duty bound to guarantee that our future generations have the capability to defend themselves, this nation from foreign threats, or regrettably our own government. Even if we cannot imagine such a threat ever happening.

I cannot imagine a greater necessity than guaranteeing liberty to future generations. The AWB is a direct threat to that future.

Just keep in mind, that taking a long view could make the need for AR type rifles now, very, very real for future generations to come.

The argument of needs is a slippery slope; I can imagine legal creep that results in the eventual question of; why would you need any rifle at all? Why not just a handgun? Because its all you would ever need to protect yourself.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Ok, this isn't my issue, really. I could care less if people are freaking out, that is there problem, not mine. I want loaded OC without a license requirement.



Agree entirely. Mostly because the "freaking out" will stop after a while.



My suggestion is not thinking that we are going to hold hands and be friends, but if we get incorporation I think we should at least ATTEMPT to see if they will change their tune. If not I am all for cramming it down their.....



I see no problem with giving the enemy the opportunity to work us. As you say, if they don't, THEN we can cram it down their .....



I am almost wondering if we are talking the same thing and we just don't realize it. . . I want shall-issue CC, better yet no licensed CC, but I will not sacrifice OC to achieve it and feel that OC might be the best avenue to achieve it. If the courts will roll over all of these issues without using OC as a tool to encite, then fine I will do my dance just the same. The end is more important than the means.


I also see no need to put LOC at risk. Because I don't see it as likely that our legislature will ever do away with CCW. There are far too many of the Right People (their definition of "Right," of course) who want CCW. Seriously, can anyone see all the Hollywood types who CCW now giving up their guns? I can't. Neither can I see them switching to LOC. Their "image" just doesn't allow for that. Add to this the city councilmen & such who CCW now. They don't want to give their guns either & for sure they won't LOC either. No, CCW will stay. Given that, "shall-issue" will surely follow.

Also, we're talking about two different arenas. "Shall-issue" is matter that will be handled in the legislature, LOC in the courts. Given that the other side already thinks (as I do) that LOC is a protected Constitutional Right (awaiting only Incorporation to have real effect) it isn't an either/or situation. LOC in the PRK is on its way.

So, given that there are those who will stop LOC only when a good alternative is available; & given the local officials who will insist on it; & (most important to those in Sacto) given the screaming from the Hollywood types who will go on & on about their need for it; CCW will stay. Given the new legal landscape, that means "Shall-issue" is on its way also.

There's no need to delay. There's no good to be done by putting LOC at risk either. There are lives to be saved & the push to start saving them should start just as soon as NORDYKE is handed down.

The Raisuli

[mblat]

Your one person, who happens to be in the game at an age where you could get high capacity magazines. Good on you... and yes, highly improbable that you would ever need them for real. We know that no one here that came to the game late can get normal capacity magazines.

Im suggesting that any one of our needs is not what defines others needs. That its dangerous to assume our own needs define others needs. You think an AR-15 is a toy... I think its highly practical for young and old ladies and old men, and people with disabilities to operate.

There is no guarantee that we will continue to be a prosperous nation, because of which, it is relatively safe to live in.

There is no guarantee that we will remain free.

We that are free are duty bound to guarantee that our future generations have the capability to defend this nation from foreign threats and our own government. Even if we cannot imagine such a threat ever happening.

I cannot imagine a greater necessity that guaranteeing liberty to future generations. The AWB is a direct threat to that future.

Just keep in mind, that taking a long view could make the need for AR type rifles now, very, very real for future generations to come.

The argument off needs is a slippery slope; I can imagine legal creep that results in the eventual question of; why would you need any rifle at all? Why not just a handgun? Because its all you would ever need to protect yourself.

One more time - I have absolutely no problem with what you saying. I am ready to sign every one of your words..... and I do not consider AR15 a toy.
However..... can we all agree that likelihood of me, or you or anybody else having use THAT type of a weapon for anything else, but an entertainment is negligible? And viable alternatives are readily accessible today? Not to suggest doing anything illegal NOW, but magazine repair kits are easily obtainable and if SHTF.....
Can we also agree that I can get robbed on my way from airport to home?

So all I am talking is priorities.

CCW that provides protection against very probable threat today should be higher priority than AW that could..... may be..... protect you in case of Mexico taking over CA :rolleyes:

I am all for protecting future generations..... after we done protecting today generation.

However, that is said - this conversation is irrelevant. This is not a democracy - priorities will be decided based cost/benefit analysis by "the right people" :rolleyes: and our opinions won't matter much. So you may get you AW long before I get my CCW.

peace....

[7x57]

*MY* interest in gun rights is very simple: I want the relationship between the citizens and the government to change. Imagine a world where the police and military have exactly the same arms and training just as anyone else. Our governemnt would be a lot less willing to treat the citizens in an arbitrary manner if most people were carrying. It would, in effect, make the citizens the government again. No knock warrants? Goodbye.

So in effect, I am fighting for civil liberties and freedom. This is what turns anti gun liberals into 2nd amendment supporters. "YOU have the right to carry a gun" is a powerful statement to them. That SIG 550 I want would be a reward for a fight well fought, not the goal in and of itself.


I agree with all that, but there is an issue of timescale. The subject of the thread seems to indicate a timescale of a few years at most: what do we go after *first*? To that question, it seems shall-issue is probably best. You are talking about a generation.

There are at least three types of oppression that the 2A is supposed to relieve. The first is individual crime, the second is government neglect or refusal to protect, and the third is direct government violence. In the first situation, handguns are clearly the most efficient weapon for all the reasons handguns exist: they are convenient enough to bear everywhere, all the time. That is also the most immediate need for the largest number of people. Yes, a longarm is still pretty useful, most especially for defense in the home. But if you could only have one weapon for personal defense, the pistol is the only one that is always there.

The third type requires rifles, because it is inherently force-on-force, and the rifleman rules the battlefield. It is the ultimate disaster in a (formerly) free society, but it is also the least likely to happen on a short timescale. Yes, there are isolated cases like Ruby Ridge, but for now it is blessedly rare. Yes, it is the most important, because if we could choose to be safe or free we are told that we must choose freedom, or cease to be men. But we do have some time to work on it.

The second overlaps the other two--if you just received a death threat from an armed paramilitary group, it's force on force and you'd better have a lot of very good friends with rifles. On the other hand if you simply live in a neighborhood the police have abandoned, you will usually not have a long gun. The most sustained example of this in our history was segregation, and we saw both sorts of conflict. If you have reason to expect the KKK to visit, better get the rifle and a lot of friends with rifles. But if you're simply a civil rights worker or black man in danger because of who or what you are but have no immediate cause for alarm, you won't have your rifle everyday but can have your sidearm.

To be free, we must have both, but it may well be that in long run the longarms are the most important. I'm sure the founders thought so: it was rifles and bayonets they were importing frantically, not pistols. But over the course of the first round or two of litigation, I think we can make do with the rifles we already keep while we work on the problem of what and how we bear.

I don't truly think there is much fear that any of the committed movers and shakers in the 2A community will *ever* forget that the 2A applies, first and foremost, to rifles. I've heard too many people say too many things to believe they will *ever* forget that. They *know* the 2A is first about rifles and will not forget them. I really believe that. And if they did, they'd find the rank-and-file are looking for new leaders. The NRA wasn't so much about black rifles way back when, and they got their priorities changed for them.

The Federalist Papers are very clear that fear helps the government to stay within its boundaries. They (Madison probably, but I forget who) claimed that it was the very fact that British citizens were better armed than their tiny army that saved Britain the chaos and violence of the French Revolution. In the very long term it is very the fact that they know we own the rifles that ensures that our biggest day-to-day problem remains ordinary crime, and that the worst happens is that we have to use our sidearms.

The great goal according to the founders is to own the rifles, know how to use them, and make sure our government knows we have them an know how to sue(*) them--and then make very certain that we never, ever, ever, to need use them for anything beyond hunting. I'm a peaceful man and it took me a long time to learn to deal with that fact, but that is precisely what they meant and there is no evading that fact.

7x57

(*) Of course, that was a typo for "use them," i.e. use the rifles. But it's almost better the way I typed it--if they know we know how to "sue them," i.e. sue the government, that keeps us one step farther from the worst case.

[383green]

can we all agree that likelihood of me, or you or anybody else having use THAT type of a weapon for anything else, but an entertainment is negligible?

I see it as being small for any individual among us, but a far from negligible chance the somebody among us here will have that need. I can easily imagine a temporary regional societal breakdown like Katrina, triggered by a major earthquake. That big earthquake might not severely impact my area in my lifetime, and it might not severely impact your area in your lifetime, but there's a reasonably good chance that it'll hit some area in the western coastal states sometime before we're all dead and buried. In a situation like that, self-defense for some could turn into a case of barricading the neighborhood and turning away looters and-or hostile LEOs, just as was the case for some during Katrina. In a case like that, a gun like an AR, AK, M1A, etc. might be very appropriate to keep at hand.


And viable alternatives are readily accessible today? Not to suggest doing anything illegal NOW, but magazine repair kits are easily obtainable and if SHTF.....

And if enough S*** hit a big enough fan, maybe some of those bullet buttons would get removed.

Can we also agree that I can get robbed on my way from airport to home?

I agree with this.

So all I am talking is priorities.

CCW that provides protection against very probable threat today should be higher priority than AW that could..... may be..... protect you in case of Mexico taking over CA :rolleyes:

I agree with you on the priorities, but "Mexico taking over CA" is far from the most likely threat that would make folks set down their pistols and reach for their Evil Black Rifles. The sort of situation that could cause that has happened here in the US within the last few years, and may well happen again in our generation.

However, that is said - this conversation is irrelevant. This is not a democracy - priorities will be decided based cost/benefit analysis by "the right people" :rolleyes: and our opinions won't matter much. So you may get you AW long before I get my CCW.

The folks on the front lines of this fight seem to think that your CCW should come first, both for pragmatic reasons and in order to do the most good as soon as possible. I agree with them on this. This is just an intellectual debate, anyway, because I think that we're all committed to going after everything on the list, and then going after the stuff that's not on the list yet.

peace....

:thumbsup:

[383green]

The great goal according to the founders is to own the rifles, know how to use them, and make sure our government knows we have them an know how to sue(*) them--and then make very certain that we never, ever, ever, to need use them for anything beyond hunting. I'm a peaceful man and it took me a long time to learn to deal with that fact, but that is precisely what they meant and there is no evading that fact.

In other words, it is by having the rifles that we minimize the chance of having a need to use them.

[aileron]

peace....

Just idle chatter about our rights. Peace to you my friend peace to you. ;)

[Liberty1]

The first case will as this threads indicates be a "bear" for self defense case. For success the "path of least resistance" will be chosen by the "right people". Fluctuating laws and legal decisions may also cause different choices than those before us (or those we would like to see first - a "bear" case may not be first if a Nordyke ruling indicates a different path is best).

Judicial practice indicates that judges will most likely grant relief to our case in a way which will least impact existing state laws. A license which exempts one from the prohibiting penal code sections (including 12031) which keep the core 2nd A right of self defense from being available is likely to be that relief.

Gura avoided the question of licensing by saying a license would satisfy their case to heighten the odds of winning the core issue. We now have Heller as a result. We will do the same initially to get a favorable decision. The KISS principle in spades.

No other issue is being thrown under the bus, just possibly delayed.

I too don't really care for CCWs on principle (all carry restrictions in my book offend the 2nd A.) But I do want the greatest number of my fellow citizens, as well as my wife, to be able to defend their lives and children ASAP. If a judge who has a "bear" case before him sees license issuance via "SD is good cause" or some other theory as the ruling easiest for him to make (and not striking down any state laws) then I'm for it.

All positive case law is great and supports all future bear cases. After that the argument that licensing of a Right which doesn't interfere with anyone else's equal right (as apposed to marching in the street) is not reasonable is easier to make.

I accept "island hopping" over rushing the mainland as the surest path to total unconditional surrender of the enemies of Liberty.

[hoffmang]

Implicit in that argument is the assumption that the right to bear extends to long guns. If it is not realistic to expect the right to LOC handguns in the California/9th Circuit political climate, why is it realistic to expect that for long guns?

You are correct that there are some risks around long guns, but I think that it will be much harder for a court to accept that the state can strongly regulate the bearing of long arms. The counter argument is that there may be places that it would be a valid "manner" restriction but the long gun is more in the core of the right than even handguns.

-Gene

[7x57]

The counter argument is that there may be places that it would be a valid "manner" restriction but the long gun is more in the core of the right than even handguns.


That's unquestionably true. But will a court actually care about that, given that the very reason this is true is the reason governments hate and fear them (the right kind, anyway) the most? Maybe I'm too paranoid, and they will after all be willing to face up to the entire message of the 2A.

7x57

[7x57]

Given the discussion so far, according to Gene's posts the "best" order seems to be:

(1) Shall-issue, to give teeth to the right to "bear." That way I won't have to hear another lawyer argue as the Alameda one did that there is no right to bear in the 2A, only to keep in one's home. Beyond that little bit of pique, however, this seems to help the most people immediately. It requires patience on the part of the OC crowd, but at least they can CC while they wait for what they *really* want. :-)

(2) Handgun roster, because it's easy and because it sets up the best possible assault on

(3) Non-assault "assault weapons." This gives teeth to the historical fact that the preeminent weapon the founders wished to protect was, in fact, long guns, and as Bill Wiese says keeps people from going to jail because of an insane and incomprehensible law. I think he suggested this be first, but going by Gene's arguments it seems it should definitely be after the roster and probably after shall-issue.

Surely LOC and many other things are down the road, but so far as I can tell planning out that far is impossible. For that matter, planning this far out is impossible in so far as the Nordyke decision could contain reasoning that changes what one chooses to attack first.

7x57

[Liberty1]

Surely LOC and many other things are down the road,

LOC is already "out the barn door and running" in many criminal cases. We may be pleasantly surprised to read the papers one day and see a court make the right decision. But the risk is also the same for a bad decision and we've already seen that in the CA Appellate Courts. One of these cases will probably reach the CA Supreme Court or SCOTUS before we (with a planned civil case) do again.

This is also an argument to tackle "bear" in one of our first cases. Regardless of the apparent issue in the case (OC or CCW) BEAR is the issue and what ever the vehicle (12050 or 12031) it is good for both OC and CCW.

[SwissFluCase]

Given the discussion so far, according to Gene's posts the "best" order seems to be:

(1) Shall-issue, to give teeth to the right to "bear." That way I won't have to hear another lawyer argue as the Alameda one did that there is no right to bear in the 2A, only to keep in one's home. Beyond that little bit of pique, however, this seems to help the most people immediately. It requires patience on the part of the OC crowd, but at least they can CC while they wait for what they *really* want. :-)

(2) Handgun roster, because it's easy and because it sets up the best possible assault on

(3) Non-assault "assault weapons." This gives teeth to the historical fact that the preeminent weapon the founders wished to protect was, in fact, long guns, and as Bill Wiese says keeps people from going to jail because of an insane and incomprehensible law. I think he suggested this be first, but going by Gene's arguments it seems it should definitely be after the roster and probably after shall-issue.

Surely LOC and many other things are down the road, but so far as I can tell planning out that far is impossible. For that matter, planning this far out is impossible in so far as the Nordyke decision could contain reasoning that changes what one chooses to attack first.

7x57

Totally works for me. We're rolling back 100 years of bad firearms legislation here, so doing it in little bites is really the only way to get ahead.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[383green]

I'm just thinking out loud here:

Once we get our first "bear" win in court (whether for shall-issue CC, LOC, or whatever), might we then have standing to push for national reciprocity of some sort through the courts, rather than the legislature? After all, once it is determined in some state that we have a Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms in our daily travels, it should follow that those travels may cross state lines.

Once national reciprocity is in place, will that help provide standing in the last hold-out states which do not have some form of either shall-issue or no-license-needed loaded carry? Otherwise, people visiting from 80% of the states could carry in the other 20% of the states where residents can't carry, and that ought to raise some sort of stink.

Are there any similar legal fights going on or about to start in other states, or is California still the leading edge of firearms legislation (though presumably in a good way for a change)?

[KDOFisch]

I agree Shall-Issue CCW is high on the list. LOC is a ticking timebomb in my opinion, and my reasons are the same that have been previously voiced. But I think highest is the AWB. Even though CCW is a more common wish for many law-abiding handgun owners, it's legally terrifying that hundreds of thousands of CA gunowners possess a black rifle that's one screw away from a felony.

On top of that, three years after Ben, Bill, Gene et al started the OLL movement, there's still legal ambiguity between the citizenry and LEAs thanks to a completely dismissive attitude on the part of our DOJ (up the 58 DAs?). CCW and LOC is very important for defense and deterrent, but I can't stand to see another law-abiding OLL owner go to jail, lose his livelihood for six months to a year and bankrupt his whole family only to have charges dropped. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars since we're paying for the litigation for the DA's office, it's a colossal waste of time, and it's a large burden for the Right People.

I'm just so sick of hearing about good gunowners going to jail. I'm also sick of having a neutered rifle because at the end of the day, it's just impractical to break an action or scrounge around for a loose round to load a mag if it really came down to a situation of really needing that black beauty. It's just kind of odd to me that I can cross a magic invisible line called the state border and suddenly yank my mag out and it's perfectly legal.

[/rant]:mad:

[7x57]

Even though CCW is a more common wish for many law-abiding handgun owners, it's legally terrifying that hundreds of thousands of CA gunowners possess a black rifle that's one screw away from a felony.


OK, but there's plenty of that sort of problem already, even if maybe it is usually not quite as dramatic. Plenty of people are also one full-auto sear away from a felony, or one cut on the barrel or stock, or whatever. A lot of that stuff is subject to constructive possession, too, which is worse than the CA stuff. How far are you willing to push that line of thought?

7x57

[KDOFisch]

A lot of that stuff is subject to constructive possession, too, which is worse than the CA stuff. How far are you willing to push that line of thought?

I see your point dude, I really do. That's why I'll say that my point is restricted to the state level. Everyone in the USA knows it's a felony to install an autosear, or drill that third hole unless you're like an 07 among many others. But here in this state alone we're looking at freaky jail time for something that's perfectly legal in most other US states. It's just odd to live in a state where owning a garden variety rifle is something that constitutes a heavy felony whereas any bordering states don't give a rat's buttocks. It's time for it to end. It's just as pointless as the safelist- it does almost nothing to make CA safer. Pointless laws do nothing to protect citizens, only infringe their rights.

[GuyW]

CCWs: self-protection first and foremost.

AWB: maximum importance to empower a citizenry that the government can't stomp on.

...everything else will be icing on the cakes...

[7x57]

It's just odd to live in a state where owning a garden variety rifle is something that constitutes a heavy felony whereas any bordering states don't give a rat's buttocks.

OK, I agree that that aspect is a special problem, since it's pretty easy to violate just moving here. Or visiting. My father-in-law would probably have done it if he were a black rifle guy.

That said: there is a difference between importance and urgency. There is some reason to think that the CCW situation is more urgent, even if the ultimate issues at stake in the non-AWB are more fundamental.

There is no doubt that at the top the gun-rights people have both in mind, I have heard enough discussions to know that. I am confident that nobody will be forgotten, even if strategically it is expedient to invade North Africa considerably before the Philippines. I am, however, somewhat worried that someone will get too impatient to wait, and possibly complicate the campaign.

7x57

[GuyW]

I'll try to say it again.

The legislature can easily end all CCW issuance. They will only have the binary choice of shall issue or no issue.

I don't think so.

The number of judges, lawyers, politicians, liberal-left monied people who have CCWs WILL RAISE HOLY HELL if they have to LOC.

Imagine public meetings, where many pols carry guns....now they have to go LOC for contentious public meetings with their constituency? What kind of message does that send to the citizens there.

Lefty-libs having to decide to go unprotected, or reveal to their hoplophobe friends that they carry a gun? I want film...

Getting rid of CCWs will never happen...
.

[hoffmang]

I don't think so.

The number of judges, lawyers, politicians, liberal-left monied people who have CCWs WILL RAISE HOLY HELL if they have to LOC.


There are "no CCW" states in the union. I don't think its as all far fetched as you think.

-Gene

[7x57]

There are "no CCW" states in the union. I don't think its as all far fetched as you think.

-Gene

Are they genuinely *NO* CCW, or are there tricksy ways that those with enough influence or money or position can do it anyway?

7x57

[Liberty1]

Are they genuinely *NO* CCW, or are there tricksy ways that those with enough influence or money or position can do it anyway?

7x57

No CCW = Illinois and Wisconsin

Illinois is Police and Politician CCW only and Wisconsin is Police only with one pizza delivery guy! :D

[mblat]

Are they genuinely *NO* CCW, or are there tricksy ways that those with enough influence or money or position can do it anyway?

7x57

IIRC Illinois, Wisconsin and Washington DC are genuine "no-issue".
That is said - if that goes this way I will make the point to stroll LOC in Beverly Hills and Santa Monica every weekend.

[bulgron]

There are "no CCW" states in the union. I don't think its as all far fetched as you think.

-Gene

The difference is that those states don't have a rather large existing body of wealthy and privileged people who are used to having CCWs, and who are not going to be happy to lose those licenses.

I just don't believe the legislature can go "no CCW" without serious political fall-out. For this reason, I believe any rhetoric around "we'll get rid of CCWs in California" is either pure bluff, or are the ravings of the few lunatics from the far left who would willingly give up their political careers to achieve that goal.

You could argue that Sacramento is populated by mostly far-left lunatics. But enough for the entire town to commit ritualized political suicide? I don't know, I just can't see it.

[7x57]

No CCW = Illinois and Wisconsin

Illinois is Police and Politician CCW only


That's what I call tricksy ways to get around it. Surely that is challengable under equal protection after incorporation. *Especially* the politician part.


and Wisconsin is Police only with one pizza delivery guy! :D

Even there, maybe a challenge can be mounted if the police can CC off-duty. If it's only on-duty, maybe not.

Tell about the pizza delivery guy!

7x57

[Liberty1]

Tell about the pizza delivery guy!

7x57

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/wisconsin-firearm-news/3778-wisconsin-state-law-prohibiting-concealed-carry-unconstitutional.html

Wisconsin: State law prohibiting concealed carry is unconstitutional

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Driver's gun charge tossed
Judge finds prosecution of delivery man unconstitutional

By DERRICK NUNNALLY
dnunnally@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Sept. 24, 2007

A Milwaukee County judge found the concealed-weapon prosecution of a pizza driver who shot two would-be robbers in seven months unconstitutional Monday.

The ruling by Circuit Judge Daniel A. Noonan means Andres Vegas won't face criminal charges in the non-fatal shootings. Prosecutors had filed a misdemeanor count of carrying a concealed weapon after the second shooting, in January, and said Vegas had been warned after a July 2006 shooting not to carry a concealed gun while driving for his job.

However, Noonan agreed with defense attorneys' contention that Vegas needed the gun to protect himself in his chosen work, citing state Supreme Court decisions that found justified exceptions to the state's concealed-carry ban.
"Given Vegas's experience, he has a need for a gun at a moment's notice," Noonan writes in his decision. "Enclosing and unloading the weapon is not a reasonable alternative to secure and protect his safety. Plus, Vegas while delivering pizzas enters and exits his car constantly; it would be unreasonable for him every time that he enters his car to require him to unload it and place it in a case and then reverse the process every time he exits. This defeats the purpose of having the gun for security and protection."

Craig Mastantuono, one of two attorneys who represented Vegas, said the weapons ban had presented Vegas, 46, with two untenable choices: either carry a gun illegally or else go unarmed on delivery runs in the same central-city neighborhoods where he has been robbed four times.


"Mr. Vegas's situation may seem unique," Mastantuono said, "but given the gap between the rights that are afforded Wisconsin citizens in the right to bear arms amendment and the prohibitions that restrict Wisconsin residents in the concealed-carry general ban that was never updated by the Legislature, I think it's going to be a recurring situation, quite frankly."

Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern said the office has no plans to appeal the decision. An appeal could give a higher court an opportunity to hand down a precedent-setting decision on whether the concealed-carry prohibition is constitutional, whereas Noonan's decision applies only to Vegas's case.

Mastantuono said Vegas has moved on, career-wise. After the charge was filed, Vegas became a delivery driver in a Milwaukee suburb. He is now a cook.
"Mr. Vegas felt required by circumstances - not only of threats to his safety but being prosecuted for defending himself - he felt required to change careers," Mastantuono said.

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

[7x57]

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/wisconsin-firearm-news/3778-wisconsin-state-law-prohibiting-concealed-carry-unconstitutional.html

Wow. They came within an ace of having their no-CCW law declared unconstitutional under the state constitution, I guess. Too bad they didn't try to fight and lose.

7x57

[383green]

The City of Berkeley has banned the possession of semi auto long guns (Division VIII "Weapons," Chapter 13.74 "Ban on Sale and Possession of Semiautomatic Weapons" .pdf available at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=7134).

Wouldn't state law preempt this ban, even without a Nordyke verdict?

[bulgron]

Wouldn't state law preempt this ban, even without a Nordyke verdict?

Yeah. I think no one has bothered to fight it, is all.

[SwissFluCase]

I do have to say that I am worried about the LOC angle creating problems. I still hold that the supreme court goofed on that part of the ruling. How they didn't see that CCW was the closest thing the US has to a national carry standard is beyond me.

I also don't trust the legislature to do or not do anything. I have lived in California my whole life and I will put nothing past them. Look at the budget mess. Most people ten years ago would have never thought it could get this bad. I have very low standards for the California state government, and they consistently fail to deliver. I strongly believe that we are better off with them cornered if we are going to see any positive change.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[383green]

Yeah. I think no one has bothered to fight it, is all.

Well, I suppose that incorporation would make it even easier to defeat once somebody shows up with standing and the resources to fight it.

[Liberty1]

How they didn't see that CCW was the closest thing the US has to a national carry standard is beyond me.


The SCOTUS has never found that concealed carry prohibitions do not violate the 2nd A. They did say in the late 19th Century in Robertson v Baldwin in dicta that opinion but it is not binding.

Where we have the strongest case against CC being a right is in the many state courts which have found CC prohibitions constitutional under their Right to Arms statutes (Vermont SC is the exception).

One would hope the USSC would also protect CC but not likely. OC has the strength of time honored statutory and judicial law on it's side however.

[SwissFluCase]

The SCOTUS has never found that concealed carry prohibitions do not violate the 2nd A. They did say in the late 19th Century in Robertson v Baldwin in dicta that opinion but it is not binding.

Where we have the strongest case against CC being a right is in the many state courts which have found CC prohibitions constitutional under their Right to Arms statutes (Vermont SC is the exception).

One would hope the USSC would also protect CC but not likely. OC has the strength of time honored statutory and judicial law on it's side however.

Since the 2A guarantees the right to bear, it seems like CCW is the appropriate remedy for those who are/will be discriminated against for OC. For example, would the courts step in against businesses and individuals who harassed open carriers? It's a lot easier to hide the gun than to stop discrimination, in our case.

Shall issue CCW is legal in more states than OC is now. In fact, it is really the only kind of carry one can do in most of the US. The problem is that until circa 1990 there had been *no* carry in most of the US for almost 80 years. It really seems that there is more recent statutory law on CCW as of late. So the question is, now that carry is a right, how is the right guaranteed in this day and age? If OC becomes unexercisable due to discrimination, is it really a right? I think of my case, I'm an executive. What am I going to carry a giant hawgs leg on my hip into the boardroom? :eek: How about a 90 lb woman in a summer dress? *Everything* she carries is in her purse!

I'm not disagreeing with you on the way things are now. I know that he courts will ultimately have to answer these questions for us, but this is where my mind keeps going on the issue. It really seems SCOTUS had a departure from reality on this issue.

Regards,

SwissFluCase

[383green]

What am I going to carry a giant hawgs leg on my hip into the boardroom? :eek: How about a 90 lb woman in a summer dress?

Ok, now I'm picturing a 90 lb woman in a summer dress, with a big revolver strapped on her hip... :wub:

[nick]

Ok, now I'm picturing a 90 lb woman in a summer dress, with a big revolver strapped on her hip... :wub:

Does it match her dress?

[383green]

Does it match her dress?

I haven't the fashion sense to know, but I can only assume that she selected it with utmost care. ;)

[N6ATF]

Practical politics may very well beat purity here - aka if the license is cheap and easy we may be stuck with it.

I think I've said something about this before, but it bears repeating. "Cheap" to politicians does not equal "cheap" to the proles.

I would be perfectly happy with the VA CHP fees (http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_ResidentConcealed.shtm), but I don't believe CA.gov would ever charge fairly when they could be balancing the budget on our backs.

The court shall charge a fee of $10.00 for the processing of an application or issuing of a permit. Local law enforcement agencies may charge a fee not to exceed $35.00 to cover the cost of conducting an investigation pursuant to this Code section. The State Police may charge a fee not to exceed $5.00 to cover the cost associated with processing the application. The total amount of the charges may not exceed $50.00, and payment may be made by any method accepted by the court.

[Paladin]

The City of Berkeley has banned the possession of semi auto long guns (Division VIII "Weapons," Chapter 13.74 "Ban on Sale and Possession of Semiautomatic Weapons" .pdf available at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=7134). The "Right People" should also have on their "To Sue" list various unconstitutional county and city ordinances. After the first few fall, letters to county counsel/city attorneys would probably be all that would be necessary to get those those various ordinances repealed.Wouldn't state law preempt this ban, even without a Nordyke verdict?Sure we could use CA's state preemption law and the state courts to shoot these type of local ordinances down. But that would just help the people under that local gov't's jurisdiction.

When you use the fed cts and Heller-Nordyke and it gets appealed to the 9th, your win now applies not only to all of CA, but also to all of the states and territories w/in the 9th's jurisdiction (AK, AZ, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands). The ruling will restrict the behavior of all of those polities' state and local gov'ts. Of those, HI is the most critical since it is one of only three states w/o state preemption of local gun laws (http://www.nraila.org/images/preemption.jpg). The other two states are NB and -- surprise, surprise -- BHO's home state of IL.

Why should we do this for HI? Maybe CGF wouldn't be willing to take up their cause, but I hope the NRA's Civil Rights Defense Fund, SAF, or someone else will. Since the 9th is seated in SF, it makes things logistically easier to use a stupid CA state law or local ordinance to bind HI.

Have I researched all this? No. But I sure hope some 2nd A RKBA lawyers do. I just wanted to pass my idea along.

ETA: If we play our cards right, even our Open Carry work in CA could also help HI (http://www.opencarry.org/hi.html).

[DDT]

It might not be possible for a state-wide no-issue law to withstand constitutional scrutiny post-incorporation. It really all comes down to how the courts interpret the "right of self defense." If, as Wisconsin did, the federal courts determine that the right to keep and bear arms for self defense extends beyond your home it will be difficult for a no-issue law to pass muster. Of course the legislature could leave open carry available as a legal alternative but that will never happen.

As others have said the last thing the gun control advocates want is for their followers and adversaries to know just how many of them carry, or have armed guards. So, in an open carry situation they would have to either admit they only hate guns that OTHERS own or they'd be unarmed. I'm pretty sure I know which they'd choose.

[nick]

Or they might create a new state agency - State VIP Protection Agency, with the purpose of protection the said self-pronounced VIPs if they feel threatened by their constituents, with self-defense being a good cause for being assigned 24/7 bodyguards :)

[Liberty1]

Shall issue CCW is legal in more states than OC is now.

I don't discount the benefits of CC or that it should be a right too. I also don't dispute that when given the choice to CC or OC equally (as in VT or AK) that CC is chosen by the majority. But you're not comparing apples to apples.

Concealed carry is a crime in all but two states; AK and VT. Loaded open carry without a permission slip is not prohibited even in CA (with restrictions on loaded in the most populated areas) and one only need to visit the OC national map at OCDO to see all the "gold & orange OC" states (http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html) (28 states) were no license is needed generally (orange states place restrictions on car carry).

"Right to carry laws" is a great political slogan, but has nothing to do with the exercise of a Right in the classic or legal sense.

Here's to both being a court protected right :cheers2:

But the courts are going to let the government regulate carry. I suspect concealed prohibiting laws (with their licensed exceptions) being the national standard will stand, and that if there is an unregulated Right that will be open carry.

What ever the "Bear" right is under the 2nd A. it has to be IMO the same right available to ALL the people from coast to coast. State laws which offend the Right have to fall to that, yet to be decided, national standard.

California has placed it self in a unique situation which I see the coalition taking advantage of; may issue licensing and a loaded ban. The result if it plays out well will be shall issue licensing based on the good cause of "self defense" first, followed by the national standard of the OC right falling into place later.

[Publius]

But the courts are going to let the government regulate carry. I suspect concealed prohibiting laws (with their licensed exceptions) being the national standard will stand, and that if there is an unregulated Right that will be open carry.

In the early days of concealed weapon laws, they were often justified on the basis that an honorable law-abiding gentleman bore his arms openly, so only a criminal had a need for a concealed weapon. I'm not saying that's a good argument, but based on the kind of originalist analysis that Scalia likes and the kind of dicta that was in the Heller opinion, I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court took an either-or approach to carrying firearms: that a state (assuming incorporation) at a minimum must allow citizens to openly carry a loaded firearm or to carry a concealed loaded firearm, but cannot prohibit both practices.

[Decoligny]

Shall issue CCW is legal in more states than OC is now.

Not quite.

Open Carry in one form or another is legal in 44 states. That leaves 6 states that have no legal open carry.

Nine States are "May Issue" or "No Issue": Alabama, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconson.

So 41 states have "Shall Issue CCW" and 44 states have "Open Carry".

[Liberty1]

I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court took an either-or approach to carrying firearms: that a state (assuming incorporation) at a minimum must allow citizens to openly carry a loaded firearm or to carry a concealed loaded firearm, but cannot prohibit both practices.

I contend that the 2nd A. must be the same right coast to coast and state laws which offend must fall eventually. I don't see a patchwork quilt in other areas of constitutional law and certainly not after the SCOTUS has decided a question clearly. Granted the circuit splits create that quilt but the Supremes then dye it one color eventually.

[SwissFluCase]

I don't discount the benefits of CC or that it should be a right too. I also don't dispute that when given the choice to CC or OC equally (as in VT or AK) that CC is chosen by the majority. But you're not comparing apples to apples.

Concealed carry is a crime in all but two states; AK and VT. Loaded open carry without a permission slip is not prohibited even in CA (with restrictions on loaded in the most populated areas) and one only need to visit the OC national map at OCDO to see all the "gold & orange OC" states (http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html) (28 states) were no license is needed generally (orange states place restrictions on car carry).

"Right to carry laws" is a great political slogan, but has nothing to do with the exercise of a Right in the classic or legal sense.

Here's to both being a court protected right :cheers2:

But the courts are going to let the government regulate carry. I suspect concealed prohibiting laws (with their licensed exceptions) being the national standard will stand, and that if there is an unregulated Right that will be open carry.

What ever the "Bear" right is under the 2nd A. it has to be IMO the same right available to ALL the people from coast to coast. State laws which offend the Right have to fall to that, yet to be decided, national standard.

California has placed it self in a unique situation which I see the coalition taking advantage of; may issue licensing and a loaded ban. The result if it plays out well will be shall issue licensing based on the good cause of "self defense" first, followed by the national standard of the OC right falling into place later.

Now wouldn't that be a hoot to open carry in a place like NYC or DC? :43:

Seriously, as a practical manner I have no problem getting a shall issue CCW in the short term. It isn't ideal, but it works. I remember SCOTUS mentioning that CCW could be regulated, but nothing about an outright prohibition. I may be wrong here, as I cannot find the exact verbiage at the moment. It seems that Article 1 section 8 of the constitution (something we hear so little about) would permit Congress to implement a national standard for CCW, as regards to training and procedures. I assume that the states would have this power as well? What bearing would this have on the issue, if any? Could this be an avenue to solve the problem if CA doesn't budge, if politics allow it?

Long term we should strive for unencumbered "loaded carry" with no distinction, but that will have to come after more and more people stand up and demand that right. What doesn't make sense is a total prohibition on CCW with no licensed exception whatsoever.

I'm just better trying to understand all of the options. Hacking the law, as it were. :D

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[Theseus]

Well, I haven't said much lately, but even as we disagree, there is a reason Gene is Chairman of CalGuns Foundation and I am not.

I still don't believe that legislature would even contemplate abolishing CCW permits. The major issue is that they want us to hide our guns as the CCW exemptions make clear. They will do anything they can to maintain that as the status. I still believe that a ruling that loaded OC is the order of the court we would have adequate ammunition to "volunteer" to not OC if they just shall-issued CCW.

[Publius]

I don't see a patchwork quilt in other areas of constitutional law

1st Amentment obscenity law: "community standards."

I'm not saying I agree with the approach I described above, but it seems like an easy solution for the Court (from their perspective and considering the way they think), which already acknowledged in the Heller majority opinion (which has its weak points) that legislatures can impose some kinds of "reasonable" restrictions on firearms, and noted that "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues" (at 54).

[Liberty1]

I remember SCOTUS mentioning that CCW could be regulated, but nothing about an outright prohibition.

SCOTUS has not decided any concealed or open carry questions. What they did in the dicta of "Roberson vs Baldwin 1897" (http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/slavery-RobertsonVBaldwin-165US275-1897.pdf) is note that the constitution is not offended by laws which "prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons". So an outright ban appears acceptable in the courts 19th century interpretation of infringed and "DC vs Heller" made mention of Robertson vs Baldwin's dicta.

[bulgron]

SCOTUS has not decided any concealed or open carry questions. What they did in the dicta of "Roberson vs Baldwin 1897" (http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/slavery-RobertsonVBaldwin-165US275-1897.pdf) is note that the constitution is not offended by laws which "prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons". So an outright ban appears acceptable in the courts 19th century interpretation of infringed and "DC vs Heller" made mention of Robertson vs Baldwin's dicta.

Yeah, but in 1897 the public wasn't generally offended by loaded open carry. I have no idea if the courts are willing to acknowledge the shift in public attitudes, but if they are then they must see CC as a constitutionally-protected practice due to the societal barriers placed on LOC.

Alternatively, they should protect LOC even to the point where businesses generally open to the public cannot ban carriers in their establishment. Sensitive places like sporting events protected by metal detectors and bars excluded, of course.

[Publius]

Yeah, but in 1897 the public wasn't generally offended by loaded open carry. I have no idea if the courts are willing to acknowledge the shift in public attitudes, but if they are then they must see CC as a constitutionally-protected practice due to the societal barriers placed on LOC.

That's why I suggested that the courts might "split the baby" by deciding that, at a minimum, states must either allow loaded open carry with minimal restrictions (following the 19th-century reasoning) or allow concealed carry with minimal restrictions (following the modern idea that concealed carry deters more broadly because you don't know who's carrying). I can see the courts justifying that by concluding that states can make policy decisions about the manner of carrying as long as they don't altogether prohibit or impose unreasonable burdens on the citizen's right to carry some useful firearm for self-defense.

[Liberty1]

1st Amentment obscenity law: "community standards."

I would relate that aspect of 1st A. case law to say state laws on brandishing or what you can do with an unslung or unholstered loaded firearm.

The core right to "Bear" in the 2nd A will be I hope comparable to speaking on a soap box or holding a sign on a public corner while not interfering with pedestrian traffic and universally exercisable without a license nationwide.

[bulgron]

That's why I suggested that the courts might "split the baby" by deciding that, at a minimum, states must either allow loaded open carry with minimal restrictions (following the 19th-century reasoning) or allow concealed carry with minimal restrictions (following the modern idea that concealed carry deters more broadly because you don't know who's carrying). I can see the courts justifying that by concluding that states can make policy decisions about the manner of carrying as long as they don't altogether prohibit or impose unreasonable burdens on the citizen's right to carry some useful firearm for self-defense.

Yes, but the point I'm getting at is that if a state (such as California) decides on unfettered LOC, but allows businesses to refuse service to practitioners of LOC, then we're sunk. This is a worry that Gene Hoffman has expressed on this board (if not in this very thread -- I'm too lazy to check).

So if a state chooses as the standard of carry LOC, then they must also include protections for people practicing LOC so that businesses generally open to the public (restaurants, stores, malls, etc) may not arbitrarily deny them entry and service. Else it is no kind of a right at all.

[Liberty1]

I have no idea if the courts are willing to acknowledge the shift in public attitudes

This would be a "living constitution" model wishy washiness adopted by progressives. I hope we're not advocating it?

[hoffmang]

Why should we do this for HI? Maybe CGF wouldn't be willing to take up their cause, but I hope the NRA's Civil Rights Defense Fund, SAF, or someone else will. Since the 9th is seated in SF, it makes things logistically easier to use a stupid CA state law or local ordinance to bind HI.


There are strategic reasons why we don't wish to attack HI or Berkley first. However, they are by no means forgotten or neglected.

-Gene

[DDT]

So if a state chooses as the standard of carry LOC, then they must also include protections for people practicing LOC so that businesses generally open to the public (restaurants, stores, malls, etc) may not arbitrarily deny them entry and service. Else it is no kind of a right at all.

This is where I get off the train. If a private business doesn't want me as a customer it is not the State's place to tell it that they have an obligation to serve me.

I also think businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Bigots, racists, religious zealots should all have the same rights to pursue happiness and conduct their business as anyone else has. I may find it disgusting and refuse to patronize their establishment but that's between us, not the government.

[Liberty1]

So if a state chooses as the standard of carry LOC, then they must also include protections for people practicing LOC so that businesses generally open to the public (restaurants, stores, malls, etc) may not arbitrarily deny them entry and service. Else it is no kind of a right at all.

I don't see Ca assisting us on this concern in the future legislatively for concealed or open. I do see a possible common law civil liability for properties and businesses which deny a self defense right and thereby assume responsibility for their guests.

[Publius]

Yes, but the point I'm getting at is that if a state (such as California) decides on unfettered LOC, but allows businesses to refuse service to practitioners of LOC, then we're sunk. This is a worry that Gene Hoffman has expressed on this board (if not in this very thread -- I'm too lazy to check).

I understand your concern, and can see that it's a serious one, but personally I think private businesses should have the right to deal with whomever they want and refuse to deal with anyone they want for whatever reason they want. Constitutional protections of rights protect us from the government, not from someone other citizen exercising their freedom of association and freedom of contract.

If a Christian wedding photographer refuses to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547), if a Muslim taxi driver declines to accept a fare carrying alcohol (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-04/2007-04-04-voa62.cfm?CFID=97567194&CFTOKEN=94001876&jsessionid=de30755ce5a25943678944606349406803f6), if some shopkeeper doesn't want to sell me something because I'm wearing a t-shirt or button naming the wrong presidential candidate, fine. That's their right. I may not agree with them, but I don't have to. I realize I'm not in the mainstream on this point, though.

[bulgron]

The courts already require businesses to serve people regardless of skin color, religious preferences, sexual orientation, and so forth. Given that the courts have already "gone there" (for better or for worse) I argue that we'd be damn fools to not take advantage of it.

If you don't want to be dealing with people who carry guns, then you ought not to be running a business in which you invite the general public through the front doors.

Once we get that court decision, unfettered CCW will become the norm in the land.

[bulgron]

I understand your concern, and can see that it's a serious one, but personally I think private businesses should have the right to deal with whomever they want and refuse to deal with anyone they want for whatever reason they want. Constitutional protections of rights protect us from the government, not from someone other citizen exercising their freedom of association and freedom of contract.

If a Christian wedding photographer refuses to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547), if a Muslim taxi driver declines to accept a fare carrying alcohol (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-04/2007-04-04-voa62.cfm?CFID=97567194&CFTOKEN=94001876&jsessionid=de30755ce5a25943678944606349406803f6), if some shopkeeper doesn't want to sell me something because I'm wearing a t-shirt or button naming the wrong presidential candidate, fine. That's their right. I may not agree with them, but I don't have to. I realize I'm not in the mainstream on this point, though.

I'm interested in using every legal tool in my arsenal to secure my most fundamental right to bear arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. If that means using prior court decisions on fair treatment and equal access to services offered by a business, then so be it.

I realize that my position is not a popular one around here. But I'm unlikely to back off of this opinion of mine.

[Liberty1]

Now wouldn't that be a hoot to open carry...DC? :43:



I expect the fast track to the Supremes in DC will give us loaded open in the coming years (5-10yrs and hopefully sooner before our 5 majority changes). (this is wishful thinking on my part I have no inside info)

[tincan715]

I also think businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Bigots, racists, religious zealots should all have the same rights to pursue happiness and conduct their business as anyone else has. I may find it disgusting and refuse to patronize their establishment but that's between us, not the government.

The problem I see with that approach is that in today's business climate you may not have an alternative to a store you prefer not to patronize. Most of us shop primarily at large chain stores and I expect that most such chains would ban LOC for both image and liability reasons if they have the legal right to do so.

[SwissFluCase]

The problem I see with that approach is that in today's business climate you may not have an alternative to a store you prefer not to patronize. Most of us shop primarily at large chain stores and I expect that most such chains would ban LOC for both image and liability reasons if they have the legal right to do so.

And here lies my point. If the state says that OC is the only permissible form of carry, they have basically said "you wanna exercise your rights, then you get to be harassed, tough!". If OC leads to harassment, then there are only two options: Go after businesses, which is expensive and affects the rights of the business, or CCW, which doesn't negatively affect *anyones* rights.

The Constitution seems silent on the issue of OC vs. CCW, simply guaranteeing the right to carry. It would follow that the right to carry prevails, and if OC became unworkable, that CCW would be an appropriate remedy.

I understand the process that SCOTUS came to its conclusion, but I still think it is dead wrong. They messed up, but maybe it was because no one was arguing this point to them, since it was outside of the scope of the case.

Regards,

SwissFluCase

[Paladin]

There are strategic reasons why we don't wish to attack HI or Berkley first. However, they are by no means forgotten or neglected.

-GeneGlad to hear.

And, of course, there is always the flip-side: litigate a really bad Hawaiian law to get binding precedent over CA and the rest of the 9th. After all, there were multiple reasons why Gura used D.C. and not ID or TX for Parker/Heller.

[yellowfin]

The problem I see with that approach is that in today's business climate you may not have an alternative to a store you prefer not to patronize. Most of us shop primarily at large chain stores and I expect that most such chains would ban LOC for both image and liability reasons if they have the legal right to do so.They justified segregation the same way.

[bulgron]

I understand the process that SCOTUS came to its conclusion, but I still think it is dead wrong. They messed up, but maybe it was because no one was arguing this point to them, since it was outside of the scope of the case.

Regards,

SwissFluCase

Then why did they bring it up?

[SwissFluCase]

Then why did they bring it up?

To tell you the truth I don't completely understand. I did read the whole decision, and the plaintiffs didn't seem to be arguing CCW at all. They certainly went further in their decision than I thought they would. Usually SCOTUS decisions are a bit narrow in scope, or so I thought.

Please pardon my apparent angst. We have been screwed with for so long and so harshly, that now I want my pound of flesh.


Regards,


SwissFluCase

[Liberty1]

...that SCOTUS came to its conclusion...(about CCW)

Take heart. SCOTUS has made no such conclusion. They merely restated what they (kind of a royal "they" meaning all previous courts back to the founding) had said in the past: and in this case the court which heard Robertson vs Baldwin 1897. That case was not a concealed carry case and their remarks were dicta (non binding but guiding opinion).

There is always the chance in the future to argue that yes government can regulate concealed carry but only for felons and other prohibited persons. I think you'll be disheartened however by how nearly all state courts who have Right to Arms in their constitutions, except Vermont (which held ALL carry is protected), have decided that issue.

[SwissFluCase]

Well, there is not much I can do personally on this front, except give money...

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[Theseus]

This is where I get off the train. If a private business doesn't want me as a customer it is not the State's place to tell it that they have an obligation to serve me.

I also think businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Bigots, racists, religious zealots should all have the same rights to pursue happiness and conduct their business as anyone else has. I may find it disgusting and refuse to patronize their establishment but that's between us, not the government.

Well, I think this is a double edged sword. A business should have the right to refuse business to certain people based on certain things. It is their business.

I still believe that most businesses won't care enough to stop it, especially if it were the ONLY legal way to carry.

Sure, there might be a few, but not enough to care about. Every where I go now I OC without problems. Ralphs, Trader Joes, Bristol Farms, Target, nameless restaurants, the Shell, Chevorn and Exxon gas stations, 7-11, Sears, even Washington Mutual and Bank of America didn't care one bit.

The stores that might ban it I would not care to shop in. Wal-Mart? Don't care. Movie theater? Don't care. Shopping malls? Don't care.

[bussda]

A brief non sequitur...

...
Sure, there might be a few, but not enough to care about. Every where I go now I OC without problems. ... even Washington Mutual and Bank of America didn't care one bit.
...

I understand where you are coming from, but I do not recommend this in certain areas. Some Washington Mutuals and Bank of Americas in Baldwin Hills , Inglewood, Hawthorne, and some others have man traps on the entrances. Even some in Hollywood and Studio City. One person at a time can enter, And the entrance and exit cannot be open at the same time. I believe they incorporate metal detectors, but I have never tripped them.

They will let multiple people out in the exit, but entering is one person at a time only.

And when going to a Jack in the Box, or KFC, the order is taken behind thick plastic and the order is delivered through a one door open at a time pass-through, whatever that is called.

Just a recommendation.

Now back to the discussion.

[383green]

I still believe that most businesses won't care enough to stop it, especially if it were the ONLY legal way to carry.

Sure, there might be a few, but not enough to care about. Every where I go now I OC without problems. Ralphs, Trader Joes, Bristol Farms, Target, nameless restaurants, the Shell, Chevorn and Exxon gas stations, 7-11, Sears, even Washington Mutual and Bank of America didn't care one bit.

I really doubt that things would turn out the way that you expect. Right now, I think that the UOC movement in CA is very small. I cannot recall ever seeing a single person openly carrying a gun and not also wearing a uniform in all of my years in CA, outside of firing ranges or behind the counters of gun stores. I don't think that 99% of Californians even know that they may UOC. I would hazard a guess that most of the people who have seen you carrying and who did not know you assumed that you're a law enforcement officer, and further that you're the only out-of-uniform person they ever see openly carrying.

Now I think that things would be entirely different after a case finding LOC to be OK without a permit. People will have heard about it on the news. It would be controversial and spectacular news, guaranteeing that the media would flood the news with it, and anti-gunners would line up for interviews in which they predict the end of civilized life as we know it. Many more people than you would start doing it. Now, when people saw somebody carrying, they would no longer assume they're a LEO... they would instead assume they're one of those civilian gun owners who have been so thoroughly demonized in the press for so long.

I contend that the many people who don't care about your UOC don't care simply because they don't know UOC even exists as an option, and thus they generally assume you're a LEO. I further contend that the situation would change radically and suddenly after a court finding that LOC is OK, and the resulting media orgasm. Furthermore, there's at least one person who did care about your LOC, and I seem to recall that you're now facing charges because of them (charges which I hope that you soundly defeat, by the way!).

A few years ago, I traveled to Phoenix (and its outlying communities), a major city in an open-carry state in the so-called "free US". I don't recall seeing a single person openly carrying, but I do recall seeing many "no guns allowed" signs on the fronts of stores that I visited. And that's in a gun-friendly state. And they were stores that I did want to visit... otherwise, I wouldn't have been there to notice their signs.

I think that you and I agree strongly on 90-100% of the same goals, but I really don't agree with your assessment of what life would be like for OCers in CA after a ruling which confirms our right to OC, but which does not restrict people from discriminating against lawful OCers. I certainly like your version of the tale better than mine, but I don't think it would work out that way after the generations of anti-gun brainwashing that so many people in this state have endured.

Edited to add: Somebody please tell me if the fairly common no-guns signs that I recall seeing around Phoenix are a figment of my imagination, but that's what my aging and cynical mind recalls.

[bulgron]

Edited to add: Somebody please tell me if the fairly common no-guns signs that I recall seeing around Phoenix are a figment of my imagination, but that's what my aging and cynical mind recalls.

When I was in Tucson at Christmas time I didn't see any No Guns signs. And, yes, I was looking for them because I was exercising CC.

Phoenix may be a different beast, though. I didn't spend any time up there.

[Theseus]

The reason I belive the way I do is because I generally talk to people about my carrying when I do. I have talked to the people at Ralphs about it. I have talked to the guys at Bristol Farms in South Pasadena, I have talked to some guys at In-N-out in North Alhambra.

Most people are FAR more interested in the fact that one can even own a gun and act so amazed! The real reason we have it so bad is because many that want guns don't know they can have them or how to get them. My strong feeling is that even in California there are many more in the middle that would come to our side if they only had the access to the proper information.

Think about it. I OC in a pretty liberal minded area, and only 2 people called police on me, both of them asian, both of them called because I was in/around their business. The guy in Monterey Park apologized afterward and then asked me how you get a permit to buy a gun!

The anti's win because too many in the middle don't know and will listen to the MSM like blind sheep. They hunger for the information, they just can't get it.

Oh, And the Ralphs, they even asked me to stick around...they could use me...

[DDT]

Most people are FAR more interested in the fact that one can even own a gun and act so amazed! The real reason we have it so bad is because many that want guns don't know they can have them or how to get them. My strong feeling is that even in California there are many more in the middle that would come to our side if they only had the access to the proper information.



Another example of the real battlefront and one where we are losing. The antis are creating a hostile environment toward guns and the gun culture or hunting, self-defense and just general plinking is dieing. The loss of places to shoot, the loss of organized ranges, these are all part of the problem. What Theseus is doing is an unconventional way of bringing guns back to the front of the consciousness of the "people that he meets each day." While I don't have the opportunity or the fortitude to do this in my own life I applaud what you are doing both for our rights and for the cause of reviving the gun culture.

[yellowfin]

The anti's win because too many in the middle don't know and will listen to the MSM like blind sheep. They hunger for the information, they just can't get it.Which is precisely why I have said dozens of times that we need to retake university campuses as our turf. It is where people turn 21, have the broadest access to information and set their world views around it, and come into contact with the most people from different walks of life than themselves. It is no accident that every possible entity seeking influence from credit card companies to Starbucks to politicians target campuses relentlessly and with HUGE effect. It is an outlet we MUST regain.

[DDT]

Which is precisely why I have said dozens of times that we need to retake university campuses as our turf. It is where people turn 21, have the broadest access to information and set their world views around it, and come into contact with the most people from different walks of life than themselves.

This is exactly why we need national service in this country. Get kids out of high school into a diverse environment where they can experience the world and their fellow Americans in a non-academic environment. Let them grow up for a couple years before they enter University.

[Wild Squid]

1. Shall Issue CCW
2. Shall issue CCW
3. Shall Issue CCW


I think by winning the 3 above would provide the greatest precedent for other laws to follow. It is of the utmost importance.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Another example of the real battlefront and one where we are losing. The antis are creating a hostile environment toward guns and the gun culture or hunting, self-defense and just general plinking is dieing. The loss of places to shoot, the loss of organized ranges, these are all part of the problem. What Theseus is doing is an unconventional way of bringing guns back to the front of the consciousness of the "people that he meets each day." While I don't have the opportunity or the fortitude to do this in my own life I applaud what you are doing both for our rights and for the cause of reviving the gun culture.


Which is why I am such a fan of Theseus & why I plan to LOC just as soon as I can. I am not brave enough to be the test case for the matter, in that it won't be me LOC the day after NORDYKE comes down, but just as soon as 12031 is no more, I'll be out there. Even if I can't go to the mall or shop everywhere, I'll still be able to walk on the beach, etc. That means I'll be interacting with other people. People who can be educated about the heat on my hip. I suspect that, like the Asian shopkeeper mentioned elsewhere, once they learn about their Rights, they'll want to exercise them as well. Which is the value of LOC at present. Not for self-defense (though that matters, of course) but simply to get the word out that the game has changed. Hopefully, every person I interact with will tell 2 friends, & they'll tell 2 friends, & so on, & so on. The "ambassadors" for the gun culture is us. Once we can do so, we should start going out & spreading the word.

As for the possible bans at the mall & such, I don't think that will last long. Someone mentioned photographers & lesbian weddings. One photog was sued for refusing to work at a gay wedding. The photog lost on the basis that no one holding out services to the general public can refuse such services because of disagreeing with a Constitutional Right. I don't think malls can ban people for wearing t-shirts bearing political messages (exercise of 1st Amendment Rights) so I suspect that bans against the exercise of 2nd Amendment Rights will be struck down fairly soon. I could be wrong about this though.

The Raisuli

[sorensen440]

This is exactly why we need national service in this country. Get kids out of high school into a diverse environment where they can experience the world and their fellow Americans in a non-academic environment. Let them grow up for a couple years before they enter University.

I would actually prefer it to be the elderly as they seem to have much less to do when they are retired ;)

[7x57]

Another example of the real battlefront and one where we are losing. The antis are creating a hostile environment toward guns and the gun culture or hunting, self-defense and just general plinking is dieing.

This is absolutely true, and I want to rant in agreement. :-) Make something 10% harder, 10% more expensive, or 10% more inconvenient, and you halve the number of people who will do it.

There is a reason why the law (federal and state both) is hard to understand and hard to obey if you do understand it. There is a reason why the penalties for innocent mistakes is punitive far, far out of proportion to any possible interpretation of what happened. There is a reason why the ATF has an incredible discretionary power to harass people. There is a reason why being an FFL is basically like painting a giant "beat me" sign on your back. There is a reason why we have laws that do nothing but distort the market and make things artificially more expensive (can you say import laws?). There is a reason that government fees multiply and increase...but the point is made, you fill in the rest.

Every FFL that decides it isn't worth it and goes into a business that makes more money for less hassle is a win for gun prohibition. Every person who wants to buy a .22 to show his boy what his dad taught him but is not (yet) a gunnie and simply doesn't have time in his life to learn the law and just gives up is a win for gun prohibition. Every person who is afraid and needs protection but ends up more afraid of their own government and the firearms laws (with some justice) than of a burglar and buys a dog instead is a win for gun prohibition (nothing against dogs, though!). Every person who hears, believes, and spreads FUD about how hard it is to own a gun and is discouraged or discourages others to abandon the thought of getting a gun before even finding out the actual law is a win for gun prohibition. And so on....

One thing I most hope for from incorporation is not any specific single thing, but an ability to go after the death-of-a-thousand-cuts directly. The Volokh Conspiracy says we just had the first case (US vs. Arzberger) where a judge looked at a (federal, so no incorporation issues) firearm restriction and said that since under Heller firearm ownership is a right, the government needed and failed to meet a high standard of necessity to impose it.

It was about taking 2A rights from sex offenders, but I don't really care about the specific issue. I care about how it was handled, that the court said the government needed to show a good reason and a link between sex crimes and the misuse of firearms, and that it said that if there was a link the government would be required to show it in each individual case so as to avoid infringing the right without necessity. That, I dearly hope, is the "cloud the size of a man's hand" that heralds an ever-increasing ability to strike down things which in themselves are not intolerable but add up to de facto prohibition or at least a restriction to the core true-believers.

The 2A isn't about the rights of the true-believers who are willing to go to the trouble (sometimes incredible trouble, witness OLLs) of knowing and following the law. It is about the rights of people who never think about guns until one day when they get very frightened and realize for the first time in their life that the government really cannot protect them from everything.

7x57

[Publius]

Someone mentioned photographers & lesbian weddings. One photog was sued for refusing to work at a gay wedding. The photog lost on the basis that no one holding out services to the general public can refuse such services because of disagreeing with a Constitutional Right. I don't think malls can ban people for wearing t-shirts bearing political messages (exercise of 1st Amendment Rights) so I suspect that bans against the exercise of 2nd Amendment Rights will be struck down fairly soon. I could be wrong about this though.


That was me who mentioned the photographer. I disagree with the decision in that case.

Malls actually can restrict speech on their own property. The 1st Amendment doesn't restrict private property owners. Some state constitutions have speech protections that go farther than the 1st Amendment, though, and California happens to be one of those states.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

"Make something 10% harder, 10% more expensive, or 10% more inconvenient, and you halve the number of people who will do it."

So true. This is the cornerstone of incrementalism.

[SwissFluCase]

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot directly work on the legal front. I can take new people shooting, however, and my goal this year is two dozen. This is where all of us can make a diferrence. People *like* shooting. Many just don't know it yet. I am going to attend my first Appleseed this year. That is a great concept, and I want to see how it works.

This is where that antis can't match us. How many people are going to go out of there way to join a gun control group? There isn't any draw for most people. Shooting is fun, and that makes our side sticky, and that is our unique advantage. Once people get a gun, they don't want to give it up. Think about it!

I am in the SF North Bay. I would totally be willing to work on a project that addresses this.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[GuyW]

Malls actually can restrict speech on their own property. The 1st Amendment doesn't restrict private property owners. .

Actually, the CA Supreme Ct case called "Pruneyard" held that malls are public places and the 1st Amendment can't be denied there...
.

[wildhawker]

...I can take new people shooting, however, and my goal this year is two dozen. This is where all of us can make a diferrence.

How very true; while the "sharp end" of our efforts are embodied by a relatively small number of people, the impact we non-lawyers/lobbyists/test cases can make by outreach, education and grassroots activism can be tremendous. It would be a mistake and a disservice to overlook what we *can* do though our surname may not be Gura, Kilmer or Hoffman.

Some of our greatest allies we have yet to meet.

[nick]

Some of our greatest allies we have yet to meet.

Tried to teach my future in-laws how to shoot... They're now horrified that their daughter enjoys not only holding, but shooting those evil black (or stainless, what can I say, I'm vain) objects. Back to the drawing board :chris:

[wildhawker]

Tried to teach my future in-laws how to shoot... They're now horrified that their daughter enjoys not only holding, but shooting those evil black (or stainless, what can I say, I'm vain) objects. Back to the drawing board :chris:

We'll never win them all, we just need to win enough.

Best of luck with the in-laws-if you can sell them, you can sell anybody... :)

[7x57]

Tried to teach my future in-laws how to shoot... They're now horrified that their daughter enjoys not only holding, but shooting those evil black (or stainless, what can I say, I'm vain) objects. Back to the drawing board :chris:

I guess your (hypothetical) son won't be expecting to get his first rifle from grandpa, then. ;)

7x57

[jlh95811]

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot directly work on the legal front. I can take new people shooting, however, and my goal this year is two dozen. This is where all of us can make a diferrence. People *like* shooting. Many just don't know it yet.... ....Shooting is fun, and that makes our side sticky, and that is our unique advantage. Once people get a gun, they don't want to give it up. Think about it!...

I am all about this "Teach a man to fish" mentality. I routinely invite people I know don't own or shoot guns to go shooting with me. It goes a long way for everyones safety as well. Teach them to do it the right way and everyone can rest a little easier.

I am currently considering UOC to help the cause. If I go out with a gun on my waist and use my 1st A right to hand out pamphlets and spead good info it could only help right?

I'm actually even thinking about just going out and handing out pamphlets and organizing an event where folks can come out for free and my friends and I can teach them how to shoot and a lot of the need to know info about gun ownership and safety.

[nick]

I guess your (hypothetical) son won't be expecting to get his first rifle from grandpa, then. ;)

7x57

Yes, he might be. His Grandpa has quite a collection. My father's alive, you know :p

He or she'll probably get his/her first rifle from me though, I'm looking for a Chipmunk to teach my niece with already. My .22 is a bit too heavy for her, so she's only been shooting handguns so far. Now, can't wait for her to get better at CLEANING guns... Some call it child labor, I call it upbringing :D

[nick]

We'll never win them all, we just need to win enough.

Best of luck with the in-laws-if you can sell them, you can sell anybody... :)

Nah, I've given up on them (and they on me). For the time spent on winning over a couple of old hippies I can bring a few dozen people into the sport.

[7x57]

Yes, he might be. His Grandpa has quite a collection. My father's alive, you know :p


When I tried to be specific, it was too clumsy to be funny. :rolleyes:


He or she'll probably get his/her first rifle from me though, I'm looking for a Chipmunk to teach my niece with already. My .22 is a bit too heavy for her, so she's only been shooting handguns so far. Now, can't wait for her to get better at CLEANING guns... Some call it child labor, I call it upbringing :D

Excellent. You've grasped the ancient secret of childrearing, grasshopper. There are a few other extremely useful phrases that will serve you for the rest of your life, and supreme among them is the classic "it builds character." You really can't say that too much. Pretty much any work you can extract from them "builds character."

Oddly enough, I'm not actually joking. :-)

7x57

[nick]

Excellent. You've grasped the ancient secret of childrearing, grasshopper. There are a few other extremely useful phrases that will serve you for the rest of your life, and supreme among them is the classic "it builds character." You really can't say that too much. Pretty much any work you can extract from them "builds character."

Oddly enough, I'm not actually joking. :-)

7x57

With the number of guns that need cleaning right now, it does build character. I have none :)

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Actually, the CA Supreme Ct case called "Pruneyard" held that malls are public places and the 1st Amendment can't be denied there...
.


That must be the case I was thinking of. I will see if I can find the details on it.

Along with that, buses & commuter trains are public places too. Better, they're funded by tax $$$. Which I'm pretty sure means that LOC can't be prohibited on them. Once we have incorporation, that is. That'll be a great opportunity to spread the word also. Along with that, I like the idea of taking along some pamphlets.

The Raisuli

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Well, I looked about & found the case. Its very interesting. The formal name is Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins & was decided back in 1980. It was also looked at again in Fashion Valley Mall LLC v. National Labor Relations Board. PRUNEYARD was upheld by SCOTUS on the basis that a state can provide greater protections for a Right than the feds. Since the PRK Const. does not protect guns, we may not have anything here. Maybe incorporation will change this, maybe not.

The problem with this is that what's protected is specifically Free Speech. I.E. nothing else is. Still, that private property can also be a public place is (for the moment) established. Does this mean that it's useful to us? Hard to say. One of the cases cited in support of PRUNEYARD says that "All private property is held subject to the power of the government to regulate its use for the public welfare."

A big issue in all of this is interfering with the business of the mall. Tables for people to sign the petitions get in the way. In FASHION VALLEY, the pamphleteers were urging people to NOT shop at the store (Robinsons-May) they were gathered in front of. Something that clearly is contrary to R-B's interests. Yet, the court allowed this.

Still, pamphleteering & signature-gathering are activities that interfere, or at least can do so. What of just walking through the mall? Another case which was cited in PRUNEYARD says "The shopping center may no more exclude individuals who wear long hair ... who are black, who are members of the John Birch Society, or who belong to the American Civil Liberties Union, merely because of these characteristics or associations, than may the City of San Rafael." If we choose to pack heat, are we then members of an identifiable associative class (the gun community) & so protected? If a potentially disruptive (but Constitutionally protected) activity is allowed in a mall, is an activity that is not disruptive, but Constitutionally protected, allowable?

Beats me! I'd like to think so, but testing those waters will have to be done by brighter minds than mine.

The Raisuli

[Theseus]

I think this is where the "individual right" comes into play.

The argument basically made would be that forbidding me my firearm is denying me a constitutional right. If free speech is protected as a right, then so is my firearm.

But, I would argue that incorporation does not need to be so to fight this. The SCOTUS ruling may not apply to States, but it should be able to be used to defend our rights against businesses, but IANAL.

Well, I looked about & found the case. Its very interesting. The formal name is Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins & was decided back in 1980. It was also looked at again in Fashion Valley Mall LLC v. National Labor Relations Board. PRUNEYARD was upheld by SCOTUS on the basis that a state can provide greater protections for a Right than the feds. Since the PRK Const. does not protect guns, we may not have anything here. Maybe incorporation will change this, maybe not.

The problem with this is that what's protected is specifically Free Speech. I.E. nothing else is. Still, that private property can also be a public place is (for the moment) established. Does this mean that it's useful to us? Hard to say. One of the cases cited in support of PRUNEYARD says that "All private property is held subject to the power of the government to regulate its use for the public welfare."

A big issue in all of this is interfering with the business of the mall. Tables for people to sign the petitions get in the way. In FASHION VALLEY, the pamphleteers were urging people to NOT shop at the store (Robinsons-May) they were gathered in front of. Something that clearly is contrary to R-B's interests. Yet, the court allowed this.

Still, pamphleteering & signature-gathering are activities that interfere, or at least can do so. What of just walking through the mall? Another case which was cited in PRUNEYARD says "The shopping center may no more exclude individuals who wear long hair ... who are black, who are members of the John Birch Society, or who belong to the American Civil Liberties Union, merely because of these characteristics or associations, than may the City of San Rafael." If we choose to pack heat, are we then members of an identifiable associative class (the gun community) & so protected? If a potentially disruptive (but Constitutionally protected) activity is allowed in a mall, is an activity that is not disruptive, but Constitutionally protected, allowable?

Beats me! I'd like to think so, but testing those waters will have to be done by brighter minds than mine.

The Raisuli

[Librarian]

I think this is where the "individual right" comes into play.

The argument basically made would be that forbidding me my firearm is denying me a constitutional right. If free speech is protected as a right, then so is my firearm.

But, I would argue that incorporation does not need to be so to fight this. The SCOTUS ruling may not apply to States, but it should be able to be used to defend our rights against businesses, but IANAL.

Your logic is correct but the state of the law prevents it from applying to actions other than those of the Federal Government. (And even that is likely to wind up in court until various parts can be 'convinced'.)

The First Amendment IS incorporated against the states; the Second Amendment is not - thus many losses in court when Second Amendment defenses have been raised, and thus also that Heller was a good case for the Second -- since DC is NOT a state, the incorporation issue was avoided.

[yellowfin]

Why is it so many courts avoided incorporation by simply saying "it hasn't been incorporated yet" and left it at that? Then incorporate it, stupids! Why the "I will if you go first" , is it really all that much like eating a worm for them?

[7x57]

Why is it so many courts avoided incorporation by simply saying "it hasn't been incorporated yet" and left it at that? Then incorporate it, stupids! Why the "I will if you go first" , is it really all that much like eating a worm for them?

No, gun rights is not so much like eating a worm. There is at least an element of rationality to that, the survival skill of avoiding things the culture says is non-food. The culture usually knows what locally is safe to eat, so this is a pretty useful trait. But for them, the thought of armed, free citizens who don't say "yes, sir" is much more like the Hellmouth opening to disgorge demons and the Living Dead erupting from the earth to feed on the brains of the living, creating a hell of terror and gore forever.

Now you know why they hate us. We're the equivalent of hideous devil-worshippers who, if left unchecked, will create a hell-on-earth of evil and chaos.

If that also sounds a lot like the antebellum fear of a successful slave uprising, you win the brass ring. They viewed slaves as two things: happy obedient, dependent children so long as social order remained, but beastial subhuman savages if let loose. The fear of Gun Rights is the same elitist fear of the people they hate and despise most not being happy, obedient children, just updated to push the subconscious buttons of different people in a different age. That's why I say that at some point we need to confront the core of the fear and make it clear that we really, absolutely mean the right of, say, "scary" young black men to carry a gun for protection. Until we do that, we're dancing around the root fear that just keeps sending up new shoots because the root is intact. That would also maybe even finish Reconstruction, come to think of it.

It's weird how a *very* liberal university class on race and discrimination designed more or less openly to teach you why blatant racism and discrimination is OK if done by the left really taught me something about their irrational, screaming fear of guns. Somehow, I think those professors would not be happy to find what I did with their classes.

In fact, much the left's agenda can be understood as different facets of childlike dependence on the State.

7x57

[Librarian]

Why is it so many courts avoided incorporation by simply saying "it hasn't been incorporated yet" and left it at that? Then incorporate it, stupids! Why the "I will if you go first" , is it really all that much like eating a worm for them?

(1) the lower courts are bound by that SCOTUS precedent, unless there's a really good reason to vary from it.
(2) the judges like the status quo since Cruikshank and Presser, so they don't try real hard to find that good reason.

In Nordyke, counsel argued that Heller invalidated the reasoning by which our local case (Fresno Rifle) was decided; if the 9th agrees, it may drop Cruikshank and Presser, and rule the Second Amendment argument can be considered against an agency lower than FedGov - incorporation!

[383green]

Now you know why they hate us. We're the equivalent of hideous devil-worshippers who, if left unchecked, will create a hell-on-earth of evil and chaos.

If that also sounds a lot like the antebellum fear of a successful slave uprising, you win the brass ring. They viewed slaves as two things: happy obedient, dependent children so long as social order remained, but beastial subhuman savages if let loose. The fear of Gun Rights is the same elitist fear of the people they hate and despise most not being happy, obedient children, just updated to push the subconscious buttons of different people in a different age.

This observation is very insightful and thought-provoking. I had never considered the irrational fear of guns and gun owners in these terms.

[timdps]

This observation is very insightful and thought-provoking. I had never considered the irrational fear of guns and gun owners in these terms.


I suspect that there are plenty of people who have not gotten over the slaves/happy children/demons thing yet, without even considering adding firearms into the equation (legally armed blacks).

The Black Panther adventure at the capitol was not THAT long ago...

tim

[SwissFluCase]

No, gun rights is not so much like eating a worm. There is at least an element of rationality to that, the survival skill of avoiding things the culture says is non-food. The culture usually knows what locally is safe to eat, so this is a pretty useful trait. But for them, the thought of armed, free citizens who don't say "yes, sir" is much more like the Hellmouth opening to disgorge demons and the Living Dead erupting from the earth to feed on the brains of the living, creating a hell of terror and gore forever.

Now you know why they hate us. We're the equivalent of hideous devil-worshippers who, if left unchecked, will create a hell-on-earth of evil and chaos.

If that also sounds a lot like the antebellum fear of a successful slave uprising, you win the brass ring. They viewed slaves as two things: happy obedient, dependent children so long as social order remained, but beastial subhuman savages if let loose. The fear of Gun Rights is the same elitist fear of the people they hate and despise most not being happy, obedient children, just updated to push the subconscious buttons of different people in a different age. That's why I say that at some point we need to confront the core of the fear and make it clear that we really, absolutely mean the right of, say, "scary" young black men to carry a gun for protection. Until we do that, we're dancing around the root fear that just keeps sending up new shoots because the root is intact. That would also maybe even finish Reconstruction, come to think of it.

It's weird how a *very* liberal university class on race and discrimination designed more or less openly to teach you why blatant racism and discrimination is OK if done by the left really taught me something about their irrational, screaming fear of guns. Somehow, I think those professors would not be happy to find what I did with their classes.

In fact, much the left's agenda can be understood as different facets of childlike dependence on the State.

7x57

Bingo! Give the man a cigar!

This is what gun control is about. It is one group of people controlling another. The racist angle is a bullseye. Gun control was created to disarm African-American people. It goes further than that, though. Discrimination not just on race, but on creed as well. The elite have plans for how we are to live our lives: they give orders, and we follow. The 2nd Amendment was codified to prevent just that. An armed people decide how they are going to run their own lives, and how their government is going to manage its own affairs.

That is what I mean by the phrase "we are changing the country here". We are literally changing the relationship between the people and the government.

Not only do the elite fear the loss of control, many jobs in the government are going to be of questionable utility in the future as well. When the people can protect themselves, much of the security apparatus in this country is going to be irrelevant. Are we really going to need all of these armed agents on the street and on payroll anymore? We all know what group of people these armed agents focus on too, right?

How about the general attitude of the public servant? I imagine it will real improve really quickly. An armed populace demands and gets respect.

The antis will howl when we bring up the racist intent of their polices. Fielding Greaves brought up the racist angle angle when debating a gun control bill in the Tiburon town council. They freaked out and went after him like nobody's business. You know you hit their hidden agenda when your opponent freaks out when confronted with it.

I think this is the perfect time to rub their noses in it.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[7x57]

I suspect that there are plenty of people who have not gotten over the slaves/happy children/demons thing yet, without even considering adding firearms into the equation (legally armed blacks).
tim

I just about didn't post the following. It's probably too incendiary. But after the most openly and unapologetically racist national campaign of my memory, I'm crabby.

Nope. It cuts more than one way, however, and that's even harder to point out because of the non-stop indoctrination about a demonstrable lie (most recently, demonstrated by the fact that we did a nationwide survey we called an "election" and the survey said that white people are less racist than just about anyone else). Many others have not gotten over the idea that white people are constantly plotting just out of earshot, and objectively this appears to be at least as widespread. For example, if someone directly accuses a man who nearly died for his country of trying to re-enslave her on national tv, instead of finding she'll never work in polite society as she deserves (at least according to the censors of the Left) she is apparently applauded. Or if a president recites blatantly racist doggerel at his inauguration, this is apparently also OK.

The truth is a *****, and the truth is that the Left is the most racist mainstream group in the US today. This is relevant to the topic because gun rights are always threatened more by fear of *others* than by anything else. We are going to have to admit that as long as young black men are scary, plenty of people will vote away their rights if the government will only protect them from those scary young black men.

*BUT*, we're also going to have to admit that as long as the left gets away with insinuating that there is racism "everywhere" (by which they mean white people only), then they can sell the idea that infantile dependence on the state is the best deal minorities can get and that they should give up *their* rights in order to be protected from those scary white people.

This is a trap, and offers no exit except to refuse to play the fear & suspicion game. Neither evil white people nor scary young black men can be free so long as there is enough fear that they each wish to be protected against each other (this is obviously a multilateral game among other groups, I'm just hitting the ones that are larger-than-life in the US imagination). For that matter, black-on-black violence is a bigger problem than black-on-white violence, so we also have to tackle the idea that only the government can protect against that. To do that, we have to directly tackle the remarkable fact that it is apparently OK to have the blatantly racist policy of focusing efforts to disarm law abiding citizens in minority neighborhoods. The government is *applauded* if it focuses it's efforts to deprive citizens of their rights on minority and poor communities. And so on...that's a "living constitution" for you.

The logical end of asking the government to protect you against *others just like you* is the final absurdity of the government protecting you *against yourself*--which we call the nanny state. Too much fear of others, played upon carefully enough, ends up as fear of self. The original sin here was accepting the left's idea that racism is the cure for racism, and accepting the slave owner's "one drop" rule for determining how we define the races we wish the government to discriminate among, and even accepting the segregationist courts' interpretation of the law and incorporation. I dearly hope that some of that can be attacked *directly* after incorporation, but I'm suspicious since the left has sold us on the idea that government discrimination is the cure for government discrimination, and therefore legal.

The difficulty in selling this obvious point is mostly that fear gets votes. Always has, always will. I doubt it would be hard to dig up examples from, say, Athens or Republican Rome, but I'm not going to bother. Who the scary bogeymen are is a matter of local opportunity, but selling fear to buy votes is eternal.

Probably, we can't even talk about all that, let alone do something about it. But in the mean time, let's not make it worse by allowing the archetypal fear of slave revolts to surface in the disguise of disarming law-abiding young black men, or any of the other mutations. Gun ownership is going to *have* to be protected just as far as the vote extends, or freedom isn't really a long-term proposition. God knows it's in enough danger without creating ever more finely divided classes that believe their interests is voting against it, for fear of other ever more finely divided classes.

7x57

[7x57]

Gun control was created to disarm African-American people.

In our memory, yes. But it originated on this continent to keep guns out of the hands of Indians, and before that in England it was used by Catholic (Protestant) kings against Protestant (Catholic) subjects. It would be interesting to know the first documented laws about private arms in history, but sometimes the control was economic before it was legal. Feudal systems in general depend on the idea that the dominant weapons system of the day is too expensive for ordinary people, so the only protection for the community is to give authority and privilege to an elite with enough money to buy the weapons system in exchange for them taking the obligation to use it to protect the community (now, a community of their subjects). Eventually, they might legally take arms away from the subjects, but I think in origin it is economic for feudal systems.

My guess is that the first documented use of this system was to create an elite rich enough to possess chariots in the fertile crescent, actually, which would make the basic concept of a better-armed elite five or six thousand years old that we know of.

But after the Civil war, what you say has been the primary breeding ground for arms control, and that *is* the important point for us right now. Here's an irony for you--if you pass laws you know are unconstitutional and write them to theoretically apply to everyone so they would pass a surface discrimination check because you don't plan to enforce it against white people who have the money and knowledge to challenge it in court, you run a high risk of eventually having those laws enforced against everyone with a presumption of constitutionality due to a lack of challenge.

What a dangerous game!

7x57

[SwissFluCase]

In our memory, yes. But it originated on this continent to keep guns out of the hands of Indians, and before that in England it was used by Catholic (Protestant) kings against Protestant (Catholic) subjects. It would be interesting to know the first documented laws about private arms in history, but sometimes the control was economic before it was legal. Feudal systems in general depend on the idea that the dominant weapons system of the day is too expensive for ordinary people, so the only protection for the community is to give authority and privilege to an elite with enough money to buy the weapons system in exchange for them taking the obligation to use it to protect the community (now, a community of their subjects). Eventually, they might legally take arms away from the subjects, but I think in origin it is economic for feudal systems.

You got me there. I had CCW in my mind. "Good cause" and "good moral character" are obvious code words. You are right about the laws turning around to bite white people. Beware of unintended consequences.

As you might imagine from my username, I have a pronounced fascination with Swiss arms. It stems from my fascination with the Swiss ideal in general. I have studied some of the history, and it does drive your point home about the elites in Europe.

First off, consider the miracle of the pencil. A most humble object created by complex machine tools delivered with an efficient supply chain. Now consider the blade. Any one of us could make a blade in about fifteen minutes with rudimentary tools. Rudimentary means "hacksaw" and "bench grinder". 1000 years ago, making a blade was obviously a much harder process. In fact, all throughout history, weapons have been the most expensive object a person could own. The meticulous care of weapons we see today is the result of their historical expense. Now we have the miracle of the Glock. A 17 shot pistol that can survive incredible abuse, is easy to use, and is cheap! $500.00 and you have the ability to fight with the best of the best. Now you just need training, but the weapon is available to anyone who can pay the cost.

So, back then we have a paradigm in which only the wealthy can afford the blade, what with all the primitive manufacturing processes. Along comes the bow. Much cheaper and effective, but it requires much training to use even semi-effectively. Then comes the crossbow.

Uh oh...

This was the first weapon that would allow a marginally trained user to pick off an elite (or his mount) on the battlefield. It was the Barret Light Fifty of its day. The Vatican decreed that its possession or use was to be punishable by excommunication. Why? Because now a commoner could pick off an elite, and as far as the Vatican was concerned, the elites were appointed by God. Hence our first major arms control push in the middle ages. The crossbow was reviled by the elites for centuries after this.

So now back to the Swiss. Up until recently, the swiss symbol on many exported goods was the crossbow. The Swiss see the crossbow they way we see the Kentucky rifle. It helped bring freedom for both countries. The weapon itself is not enough, though. It was the will to use it, and we both prevailed. Switzerland gained independence from the Holy Roman Empire in the 13th century. The three original cantons banded together to fight off the Austrian knights. Legend has it (and this is still an area of study so I may not be 100% accurate) that the Swiss killed over 10,000 knights during this campaign. They did it by fighting dirty. They used every advantage they could.

Later on, the fearsome Halberd was their primary weapon, then the crossbow, then the musket, then the rifle. They were always outnumbered, so they always used the latest technology.

So what does this have to do with us? Our Founding Fathers saw the wisdom of the Swiss defense system, and wanted the exact same thing here. What does this have to do with us right *now*? The 2nd Amendment is not about guns. It is about arms. This means rifles, pistols, AWs, laser guns, directed energy weapons, weaponized robots, whatever. If a soldier has to bear it as his primary weapon, the citizens get it too.

Incidentally, the EU is doing everything it can to disarm Switzerland. The elites still hate them.

Now back to the racial issue. Would most of the African American kids who are in gangs today be there if they exercised free will? It seems not. Many of their youth are coerced with threats and violence to join the gang. Others do it for protection. In effect, the gang becomes their defacto government. The top gangsters are the warlords. The lower ones are the pawns. Everyone else in the neighborhood is treated like a serf. Sound familiar?

Now if the elites want to control the African Americans, but keep their hands clean, how to do it? Divide and conquer seems to be the plan. Let the gangs keep everyone in fear. Let them use violence against one another. Use this to control them. Use the fear to convince the other races to vote for the elites and their programs to keep the gangs at bay. Blacks against whites (and vice versa). Gays against Christians (and vice versa). Republicans against Democrats (and vice versa). Benchrest shooters against machinegunners (and vice versa). Take away everyone's rights. Enforce your agenda. We *all* lose.

The Swiss taught our Founding Fathers what they must teach us: An armed populace is not only free from elite oppression, but is free from the tensions otherwise inherent in a multicultural society. An armed population is at peace.

Thank God those people in the SF housing projects can finally defend themselves. Our first big win with with Heller!

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[7x57]

"Good cause" and "good moral character" are obvious code words.


Excellent point, "code words" is correct. I hadn't actually thought of it that way, which just shows I haven't chased the ideas all the way down.


In fact, all throughout history, weapons have been the most expensive object a person could own.


Hmm. Often, yes, but not always unless you expand the definition beyond personal weapons. The sail of a Norse longship took about the same time to make as the hull, and was as valuable IIRC. I guess either was more expensive than any personal kit of the viking era. The longship is indeed a weapon, but not a personal one--OTOH about the same would be true of a knarr, and a knarr is a cargo vessel and not a weapon.

There's also the training, which can be as expensive. A knight isn't just expensive because of the cost of his gear and his horse (a big part of the expense). He's also expensive because of the lifelong training he's expected to have. Part of the feudal bargain is that the peasants support their lord so he can train instead of work.

One of the finer modern swordsmen is an Aussie who is/has been into a lot of historical reenactment as well. He was at an event one time where the (probably local) press was asking people what their persona was, and so you had the usual people explaining about the medieval knights and the noble ideals they embodied and so on. They got to Stephen, looked at his full pike & musket gear, and asked him what his group was. He replied "we're the blokes what made all the rest of them obsolete." :-)


The meticulous care of weapons we see today is the result of their historical expense. Now we have the miracle of the Glock. A 17 shot pistol that can survive incredible abuse, is easy to use, and is cheap! $500.00 and you have the ability to fight with the best of the best. Now you just need training, but the weapon is available to anyone who can pay the cost.


I agree with you in general, but that's not exclusive to firearms. Particularly for personal defense off the battlefield, the English knew that the staff was actually more deadly than most of the more expensive weapons, and for a modest additional cost or effort you could have a blacksmith sheath the ends in metal to make a tipstaff or even give it a light head to make a bill. George Silver told us the bill was the most effective weapon in single combat, and the simple staff was only slightly behind. The other weapons were more useful on the battlefield when you had men mutually supporting each other in formation, but for personal defense consider that an English peasant could by himself make a staff for essentially the cost of a bit of time and not be underarmed in any individual encounter.


So, back then we have a paradigm in which only the wealthy can afford the blade, what with all the primitive manufacturing processes. Along comes the bow. Much cheaper and effective, but it requires much training to use even semi-effectively.


Fine, but when the English kings *required* that training of every yeoman, in practice it's still pretty leveling since they all have to have it anyway and you can't restrict it's use to the king's service.


Later on, the fearsome Halberd was their primary weapon, then the crossbow, then the musket, then the rifle. They were always outnumbered, so they always used the latest technology.


Don't sell the Swiss short--I think the difference was morale and not technology. They faced equal weapons and tactics on the battlefield plenty of times, IIRC. Didn't they make a point to engage their German imitators anytime they could, and just about always won?


So what does this have to do with us? Our Founding Fathers saw the wisdom of the Swiss defense system, and wanted the exact same thing here.


In theory, they wanted *more*. At least nowadays, in Switzerland the right is connected with service, and IIRC handguns are restricted and the service rifles carefully accounted for while in civilian hands. The 2A is about all three kinds of defense and handguns as well as long guns.

We may not *have* what it promises, but it promises more than what the Swiss have.


What does this have to do with us right *now*? The 2nd Amendment is not about guns. It is about arms. This means rifles, pistols, AWs, laser guns, directed energy weapons, weaponized robots, whatever. If a soldier has to bear it as his primary weapon, the citizens get it too.


Which opens up the can o' worms about certain widely accepted gun controls that, frankly, we all seem to avoid talking about but blatantly pervert the clear intent of the 2A. Perhaps that's politically necessary?


Incidentally, the EU is doing everything it can to disarm Switzerland. The elites still hate them.


I seem to remember that they had decided not to issue a pile of ammo with the rifles anymore, but I had not heard that the EU was pushing Switzerland on the issue.


Now back to the racial issue. Would most of the African American kids who are in gangs today be there if they exercised free will? It seems not. Many of their youth are coerced with threats and violence to join the gang. Others do it for protection. In effect, the gang becomes their defacto government. The top gangsters are the warlords. The lower ones are the pawns. Everyone else in the neighborhood is treated like a serf. Sound familiar?


Of course. It is the most primitive bargain for safety, the protection racket. I believe we've tried everything *else* but offering the law-abiding citizens the chance to clean up their own streets or at least keep their own homes safe....

The funny thing is that the disarming agent (the government) not only offers no safety but the community does not perceive it to offer any. It does not seem that cynicism about the lack of police protection translates into a desire for self-protection.

Yet. :43:


Thank God those people in the SF housing projects can finally defend themselves. Our first big win with with Heller!


Let's see if they will be able to exercise that right, or if there will be too many "obstacles." I'm also a bit worried that there may a cultural issue which is somewhat indelicate to mention. Culture is a means of transmitting working knowledge, and contrary to popular belief not all cultures are equivalent. To us, "gun culture" means transmitting the skills to live with guns safely and the determination to protect ourselves. To many people there, it means the gang culture, since that's where they see the guns. They probably won't have much trouble having the determination for self-protection, but what about living with guns safely? If all the community examples are negative and involve dangerous foolishness with guns, how do you transmit something different to your children? What about a neighborhood where broken families are the norm? Safe homes with both children and firearms require a reasonably high level of discipline, because the rules *must* be obeyed before the child is old enough to understand them.

In other words, I fear a sufficiently broken culture and community may be incapable of exercising the right well. I had never thought of this until I talked to a hispanic man behind the counter of a convenience store in the middle of the night. This was on the way back from Nordyke, so the subject came up. He certainly believed in self-defense, but told me he got rid of his guns because his (now ex-) wife was enough of a screw-up that she'd leave his gun cabinet unlocked and open and the kids would get ahold of them and take them outside. I would guess that *he* was OK, but it didn't matter as long as there were irresponsible adults around. I hate to say it, but I am afraid the 2A did not work for him. :-( (Yes, maybe a safe or vault that only he had a combination for would have done it, but I did not try to second-guess him.)

That can be overcome, but I fear human foolish might make it difficult in practice. Also some of the better solutions might get back to that visceral antebellum fear factor in a way I didn't even hint at before. What if the gangs are functionally an occupying military force, and the law-abiding residents decide that their only option is to organize and drill, a true local militia? The idea of *organization* will heighten the fear of *young black men with guns* even higher.

Maybe the 2A wants to guarantee that they can do just that, just as it appears. Is it going to happen? I suspect not.

Wow, this has ended up touching on most of the third-rail topics. I expect the men in black to be knocking any second....

ETA: You promised me lasers and robots, and don't think I won't remember and hold you to that!

7x57

[SwissFluCase]

A knight isn't just expensive because of the cost of his gear and his horse (a big part of the expense). He's also expensive because of the lifelong training he's expected to have. Part of the feudal bargain is that the peasants support their lord so he can train instead of work.

Very true. In most cases, modern weapons development has the goals of reducing training requiements. This ranges to firearms themselves, to accessories such as holographic lasersights, and designs such as the KRISS. As these training requirements diminish, the democratization of the technology spreads. Net result, less need for the elite.

George Silver told us the bill was the most effective weapon in single combat, and the simple staff was only slightly behind. The other weapons were more useful on the battlefield when you had men mutually supporting each other in formation, but for personal defense consider that an English peasant could by himself make a staff for essentially the cost of a bit of time and not be underarmed in any individual encounter.

Very true. This sounds like the bo staff work from Eastern martial arts. In fact, there are whole variations of European martial arts that have been forgotten, or are little known. Some of it has made a resurgence as of late.

Don't sell the Swiss short--I think the difference was morale and not technology. They faced equal weapons and tactics on the battlefield plenty of times, IIRC.

I certainly don't intend to. The Swiss during WWII (for example) used the now famous K-31 against the Nazi regime. Not only could it fire faster than the K98, it was nominally more accurate. Maybe not by a lot, but the Swiss used this weapon to its fullest potential. The French trained at 50 meters, the Germans at 100, and the Swiss at 300. They have had the most advanced weaponry as practicality allowed, and they trained to use its full potential. Both the technology and the training combined with the knowledge that they were fighting for their freedom led to high levels of morale. Of course they also played the diplomatic games perfectly as well, so they were able to sell their strategic situation as an advantage to the Gremans war effort.

On the downside, the militia mindset in that country has caused other problems. The main is the rigid conformity of Swiss society. I dated a Swiss woman at one time, and she told me that they practice self-repression.

At least nowadays, in Switzerland the right is connected with service, and IIRC handguns are restricted and the service rifles carefully accounted for while in civilian hands. The 2A is about all three kinds of defense and handguns as well as long guns.

I think as long as you can prove you are Swiss citizen you can buy whatever the Army sells off as surplus, which means pretty much everything. It's certainly better than California, for sure. The one thing the Founding Fathers wanted to be cognizant of was the rights of conscientous objectors, which shaped the 2nd Amendment into a right, and not a mandate.

It is the most primitive bargain for safety, the protection racket.

Oh, and how people hate it when I point that out. But it's true. We are ruled by the king, or we band together for the common defense. Either way, survival dictates we do *something*.

ETA: Three following paragraphs that didn't make it. Arrgh!

Let's see if they will be able to exercise that right, or if there will be too many "obstacles." I'm also a bit worried that there may a cultural issue which is somewhat indelicate to mention. Culture is a means of transmitting working knowledge, and contrary to popular belief not all cultures are equivalent. To us, "gun culture" means transmitting the skills to live with guns safely and the determination to protect ourselves. To many people there, it means the gang culture, since that's where they see the guns. They probably won't have much trouble having the determination for self-protection, but what about living with guns safely? If all the community examples are negative and involve dangerous foolishness with guns, how do you transmit something different to your children? What about a neighborhood where broken families are the norm? Safe homes with both children and firearms require a reasonably high level of discipline, because the rules *must* be obeyed before the child is old enough to understand them.

I fear you may be right. We are having trouble training the new Iraqi Army in safe gun handling. Apparently, some cultures don't get muzzle control. I did read an article about this, and the author postulated that it may be due to the fact that the hard nature of their lives. They are willing to let an accident be written off as fate. This is apparent in their driving habits as well.

Back to the issues we have, it is going to be up to us to help out the best we can to train these groups how to handle weapons in a positive manner. I don't think it will be easy, but it will probably be up to us, so what to do?

Looking to the next 50 years...

We live in an age in which the weaponized robot has already been fielded, on land and in the air. This technology will be very easy for non-state actors to acquire. Survival Research Laboratories, as you may know, builds killer robots as art projects. Killer robots with flamethrowers and railguns! :eek: So in our lifetimes we are seeing the armed robot as the next major paradigm in weapons development. With autonomous capability, the Killer Robot (tm) will be able to identify threats, and engage them without interaction from the operator. They (Roomba) are already developing the TaserBot on the same concept. Can of worms? Juicy nightcrawlers, fellow citizen.

Oh, and I'll eat a worm if it is the only thing that will restore our CCW rights. :ack2:

We are also likely to see the wireless Taser (lethal and non-lethal), and we already have portable lasers that can maim (reference: blinding lasers).

So now that we have thrown gasoline on the debate, we need only acknowledge that Killer Robots (tm) are only one part of the genetics, nantotechnology, robotics (GNR) revolution that is just beginning now. All of this technology will be weaponized for better for for worse. We need to make sure that the balance of power between the citizens and the government favor the citizens, and freedom. These new weapons developments are really going to teach us the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

We need to make sure that freedom prevails, always.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[7x57]

Very true. In most cases, modern weapons development has the goals of reducing training requiements.


This is generically true of technology. Technology always benefits the incompetent more than the expert and narrows the gap. Possessing a sword does not enable a shopkeeper to defend his shop against blade-armed assailants to nearly the degree that firearms do.


Very true. This sounds like the bo staff work from Eastern martial arts. In fact, there are whole variations of European martial arts that have been forgotten, or are little known. Some of it has made a resurgence as of late.


I was doing it quite a few years ago--I guess it has become a bit more well-known since then. :-)


On the downside, the militia mindset in that country has caused other problems. The main is the rigid conformity of Swiss society. I dated a Swiss woman at one time, and she told me that they practice self-repression.


Given that this is what they say of the Germans too, I don't know that this can be blamed on firearms. :-)


I fear you may be right. We are having trouble training the new Iraqi Army in safe gun handling. Apparently, some cultures don't get muzzle control. I did read an article about this, and the author postulated that it may be due to the fact that the hard
nature of their lives.


I'm susp


They can take my Killer Robot (tm) when they can pry it off of my well mowed lawn!!! :43:


I plan to keep Killer Robots far, far away from my 2A activism discussions. I can only imagine the news stories....

7x57

[SwissFluCase]

I plan to keep Killer Robots far, far away from my 2A activism discussions. I can only imagine the news stories....7x57

Not a bad idea. This topic is for Constituion geeks only. ;)

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[Mulay El Raisuli]

I think this is where the "individual right" comes into play.

The argument basically made would be that forbidding me my firearm is denying me a constitutional right. If free speech is protected as a right, then so is my firearm.

But, I would argue that incorporation does not need to be so to fight this. The SCOTUS ruling may not apply to States, but it should be able to be used to defend our rights against businesses, but IANAL.


I suspect you're correct. I just went over ARZBERGER again & that leads me even more to think you're right. A Right is a Right is a Right, after all. Sauce for the goose & all that. I don't think I'm out of line to expect big things on this fairly soon.

The Raisuli


IANAL?

[bulgron]

IANAL?

IANAL == I Am Not A Lawyer.

[luvtolean]

You are correct that there are some risks around long guns, but I think that it will be much harder for a court to accept that the state can strongly regulate the bearing of long arms. The counter argument is that there may be places that it would be a valid "manner" restriction but the long gun is more in the core of the right than even handguns.

-Gene

That's how I see things.

There is no firearm, in my opinion, with more clear 2nd protection than the current standard issue military rifle (carbine).

The AWB offends both my "rule of law" sensibilities and enshrinement of the Constitution more than any gun law on the books, not to mention practically impacts the weapons I like shooting most.

[Suvorov]

That's how I see things.

There is no firearm, in my opinion, with more clear 2nd protection than the current standard issue military rifle (carbine).

The AWB offends both my "rule of law" sensibilities and enshrinement of the Constitution more than any gun law on the books, not to mention practically impacts the weapons I like shooting most.

Agree 110%

Someone correct me if I'm wrong or help me understand. It is my understanding that in the challenge of the AWB, the CAL Supreme Court stated the AWB was constitutional because the 2nd Amendment was a collective and not individual right. With Heller incorporation with Nordyke, doesn't that make the CAL Supreme Court decision invalid?

[SwissFluCase]

Agree 110%

Someone correct me if I'm wrong or help me understand. It is my understanding that in the challenge of the AWB, the CAL Supreme Court stated the AWB was constitutional because the 2nd Amendment was a collective and not individual right. With Heller incorporation with Nordyke, doesn't that make the CAL Supreme Court decision invalid?

After a new challenge to the AW ban would go through the digestive system of the courts, it would certainly seem so.

Thanks to the OLL effort, it should be struck down simply because the AW ban is deprecated, but that is wishful thinking.

Regards,


SwissFluCase