PDA

View Full Version : Even with Nordyke, please be careful, don't be stupid


bwiese
04-20-2009, 10:23 AM
I know we've all seen the great Nordyke news today, that the 2nd Amendment is alive in CA and incorporated at least to intermediate if not strict scrutiny.

BUT PLEASE DO NOT USE THAT AS A "PASS" TO GO DO SOMETHING STUPID THAT VIOLATES CALIF's CURRENT LAWS. WE DON'T NEED MARTYRS, AND WE DON'T NEED THE PIPELINE FILLED WITH "JUNK" CASES TYING UP RESOURCES.

Please continue adhering to the letter of CA law and let the bulldozers run ahead...

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 10:24 AM
Instead of doing something stupid, they should be filling out CCW applications perhaps?

ilbob
04-20-2009, 10:28 AM
Instead of doing something stupid, they should be filling out CCW applications perhaps?

or AW permits!

n2k
04-20-2009, 10:30 AM
I have done both....:thumbsup:

sorensen440
04-20-2009, 10:31 AM
I dont care what you say I'm removing my bullet button and installing a regular one !!!























In about two weeks while im in Nevada :p

thegratenate
04-20-2009, 10:31 AM
I believe that proper allocation of resources can get us the world. We need to make sure that those Bulldozers are full of fuel and aimed in the right direction, a good sharpening of the blades wouldn't hurt either.

FreshTapCoke
04-20-2009, 10:32 AM
Or donating to CGF!

GMONEY
04-20-2009, 10:33 AM
Can we really start filling out aw requests? Give us some direction on where to start?

GMONEY
04-20-2009, 10:34 AM
Or what to do! What a great bday present for me today!!!

gn3hz3ku1*
04-20-2009, 10:35 AM
Since the application requires training....what is a good place to be "trained" for CA CCW?

bwiese
04-20-2009, 10:35 AM
Can we really start filling out aw requests? Give us some direction on where to start?

Let's not do that. Why fill out a CA AW permit that the RKBA says is unneeded? And why pay $$$ yearly fees and have to adhere to onerous storage/transpo requirements?

leelaw
04-20-2009, 10:36 AM
or AW permits!

Hold off on that one.. :43:

tiki
04-20-2009, 10:39 AM
Guys, relax. Let the court cases proceed. No laws changed today. Let the well thought out challenges by the right folks proceed. Pour a coffee or a beer and keep reading and you will know as things change.

wildhawker
04-20-2009, 10:39 AM
Let's not do that. Why fill out a CA AW permit that the RKBA says is unneeded? And why pay $$$ yearly fees and have to adhere to onerous storage/transpo requirements?

Because, simply, we'll miss them all so much when they're gone. :43:

Californio
04-20-2009, 10:43 AM
bwiese,

So now the battle field is "Reasonable Regulation" is this going to be Circuit Court by Circuit Court until SCOTUS finally rules on a National basis or is there a quicker way to get a uniform National Policy?

Oh Happy Day:)

mblat
04-20-2009, 10:51 AM
K. jest of this (if I read it correctly) is that we will probably get "go ahead" on configuring our rifles in most "evil" way possible and let .gov try to arrest us.

but what about CCW permits.... Should I fill up one in Los Angeles right ****ing now? Please, I need, I want marching orders.... :thumbsup:

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 10:54 AM
K. jest of this (if I read it correctly) is that we will probably get "go ahead" on configuring our rifles in most "evil" way possible and let .gov try to arrest us. You mean the 4th most evil ways possible. #1, 2, and 3 evil features each require a $200 tax stamp you can't get here, and you can't even find the parts in this state for #1 and #2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th_FpwgGc-E

but what about CCW permits.... Should I fill up one in Los Angeles right ****ing now? Please, I need, I want marching orders.... :thumbsup: YES! That is what we've been saying by HICKMAN IS VOID. Fill it out and drop off with the sheriff TODAY.

Darklyte27
04-20-2009, 11:00 AM
:innocent:

mecam
04-20-2009, 11:03 AM
Instead of doing something stupid, they should be filling out CCW applications perhaps?

Where to download this online?

mblat
04-20-2009, 11:04 AM
You mean the 4th most evil ways possible. #1, 2, and 3 evil features each require a $200 tax stamp you can't get here, and you can't even find the parts in this state for #1 and #2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th_FpwgGc-E

Yes.... you are most correct.....

YES! That is what we've been saying by HICKMAN IS VOID. Fill it out and drop off with the sheriff TODAY.
So.... should I write "It isn;t your damn business WHY I want CCW. Hickman was declared void by 9th circuit of appeal and the only reason I am applying so I can sue your *** if you deny me my constitutionally protected right, as defined by the Court."

mblat
04-20-2009, 11:05 AM
Where to download this online?
here it is

http://www.lasd.org/contact_us/inquiry/gen_pub_ccw_app.pdf

Santa Cruz Armory
04-20-2009, 11:15 AM
So, does this actually give us a good reason to submit our CCW applications?? what should we use as our "good cause" now?

andrewj
04-20-2009, 11:16 AM
So, does this actually give us a good reason to submit our CCW applications?? what should we use as our "good cause" now?

If Im not mistaken, it seems that you dont need it now. But saying personal protection and the protection of others may suffice

SgtBulldog
04-20-2009, 11:17 AM
Although Hickman is invalidated, that doesn't mean the "good cause" clause is invalidated. It merely opens the door for a Hickman redux. And I'd wager that the "right people" already have such a case lined up and ready to go.

bigdave1121
04-20-2009, 11:19 AM
Well I've been gone for a while, but it's nice to come back to some good news re gun rights in Cali for once!

Librarian
04-20-2009, 11:20 AM
Nordyke + CCW application does NOT mean 'CCW issued'.

While I suppose one or two sheriffs may modify their policies based directly on Nordyke, it's far more likely that substantially all CCW applications will be treated today and going forward exactly as they would have been last Friday, requiring a lawsuit over denials.

It's not that one might not win such a suit, but that it will be expensive to be the first litigant in San Francisco and Los Angeles. At some point a body of documented denials might be useful in whacking some jurisdiction over the head, so applying might be a decent idea, but a little ol' court ruling isn't going to influence Gavin Newsom's or Villaraigosa's conversations with their Chiefs of Police.

fairfaxjim
04-20-2009, 11:20 AM
The smartest thing you can do today is send the Calguns foundation some $$ to get this ball rolling. My check is in the mail! The stupidest thing is don't send some $$. These things aren't happening by accident or good luck.

dixieD
04-20-2009, 11:38 AM
Let's not do that. Why fill out a CA AW permit that the RKBA says is unneeded? And why pay $$$ yearly fees and have to adhere to onerous storage/transpo requirements?

And, voluntarily subject oneself to registration.

Theseus
04-20-2009, 11:46 AM
Please...like I needed Nordyke to do something stupid! :eek:

Paladin
04-20-2009, 11:52 AM
Please...like I needed Nordyke to do something stupid! :eek:

ROTFLOL! Funniest post of the day!

Liberty1
04-20-2009, 11:55 AM
Please...like I needed Nordyke to do something stupid! :eek:

You followed the letter of the law. You're a victim of the County's desire to convict a law abiding citizen. I look forward to the 2nd A. being pled in your case! :)

zinfull
04-20-2009, 12:09 PM
I would think that Orange County will have a good CCW case coming up. The new sheriff revoked existing permits and among them was a upper Republican. They are pretty POed at the sheriff.

Jerry

AEC1
04-20-2009, 12:31 PM
So no BB removal party?

CCWFacts
04-20-2009, 12:32 PM
When will Nordyke allow people to start pursuing 42 U.S.C. 1983 actions against sheriffs and police chiefs? Will it also allow Federal criminal civil rights investigations?

JDoe
04-20-2009, 12:40 PM
When will Nordyke allow people to start pursuing 42 U.S.C. 1983 actions against sheriffs and police chiefs? Will it also allow Federal criminal civil rights investigations?

Do you mean under TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242?

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.php)
Summary:

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

CCWFacts
04-20-2009, 12:46 PM
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Damn, that's harsh. But you know, in SF / Oakland, there have been numerous cases of crime witnesses being killed. If someone witnessed a crime, testified, applied for a CCW, was denied (in violation of his civil rights), and then was killed, then I hope the chief / sheriff who violated the guy's civil rights would suffer harsh criminal penalties.

nick
04-20-2009, 12:55 PM
Since the application requires training....what is a good place to be "trained" for CA CCW?

I saw Firing Line in Burbank offering some CCW classes. Not sure if they were for CA or Utah/Florida though.

Gray Peterson
04-20-2009, 1:13 PM
Before anyone files a case over CCW, I want you to consider a few things.

First, applying for a CCW right now is dumb unless we get some intel from the Sheriffs stating that they are going to be changing their policy. A few sheriffs might go from Yellow to Green, but that's about it with Nordyke.

Second, applying to file a case against a sheriff is a bad idea due to the district court pool everywhere with the possible exception of the Eastern District. Los Angeles area and San Francisco area district courts are filled with district judges that hate RKBA and the Second Amendment with such a passion that they cannot be trusted with a case in front of them.

Third, even if you live in Eastern District, it's been repeatedly stated before: Wait until "The Right People" give the go ahead. If a Sheriff suddenly changes their policy to fully comply with Nordyke and issue for personal protection, they will tell us and get the word out to the residents of these counties to have them apply.

Fourth, do not screw this up for your fellow Calgunners thinking that you're the next Dick Heller. Do not let a criminal defense lawyer, or some other lawyer who has absolutely no skin in the game with the RKBA (besides Gura, Kilmer, Kates, Michel, Colodny and Davis). Any other lawyer that's chomping at the bit to take a case like this is likely another "Gorski". Remember Silveira!!!!

truthseeker
04-20-2009, 1:18 PM
Fourth, do not screw this up for your fellow Calgunners thinking that you're the next Dick Heller. Do not let a criminal defense lawyer, or some other lawyer who has absolutely no skin in the game with the RKBA (besides Gura, Kilmer, Kates, Michel, Colodny and Davis). Any other lawyer that's chomping at the bit to take a case like this is likely another "Gorski". Remember Silveira!!!!

That is exactly what I am afraid of!

ilbob
04-20-2009, 1:23 PM
Hold off on that one.. :43:
Don't need them in IL in any case.

Chances are this case is not going to help reduce the backlog of ARs and AR parts. :)

ilbob
04-20-2009, 1:27 PM
I won't disagree with the logic. Its best to fight this kind of thing intelligently, even though it can take years for it to work its way through the courts.

I think Heller and Nordyke are best used right now to bludgen the legislature over shall issue. And the hearings tomorrow are the place to start.

Before anyone files a case over CCW, I want you to consider a few things.

First, applying for a CCW right now is dumb unless we get some intel from the Sheriffs stating that they are going to be changing their policy. A few sheriffs might go from Yellow to Green, but that's about it with Nordyke.

Second, applying to file a case against a sheriff is a bad idea due to the district court pool everywhere with the possible exception of the Eastern District. Los Angeles area and San Francisco area district courts are filled with district judges that hate RKBA and the Second Amendment with such a passion that they cannot be trusted with a case in front of them.

Third, even if you live in Eastern District, it's been repeatedly stated before: Wait until "The Right People" give the go ahead. If a Sheriff suddenly changes their policy to fully comply with Nordyke and issue for personal protection, they will tell us and get the word out to the residents of these counties to have them apply.

Fourth, do not screw this up for your fellow Calgunners thinking that you're the next Dick Heller. Do not let a criminal defense lawyer, or some other lawyer who has absolutely no skin in the game with the RKBA (besides Gura, Kilmer, Kates, Michel, Colodny and Davis). Any other lawyer that's chomping at the bit to take a case like this is likely another "Gorski". Remember Silveira!!!!

B Strong
04-20-2009, 5:40 PM
Or donating to CGF!

Now you're talking.

It wouldn't hurt for everyone to donate the cost of one box of ammo to the CGF.

Aegis
04-20-2009, 7:20 PM
Before anyone files a case over CCW, I want you to consider a few things.

First, applying for a CCW right now is dumb unless we get some intel from the Sheriffs stating that they are going to be changing their policy. A few sheriffs might go from Yellow to Green, but that's about it with Nordyke.

Second, applying to file a case against a sheriff is a bad idea due to the district court pool everywhere with the possible exception of the Eastern District. Los Angeles area and San Francisco area district courts are filled with district judges that hate RKBA and the Second Amendment with such a passion that they cannot be trusted with a case in front of them.

Third, even if you live in Eastern District, it's been repeatedly stated before: Wait until "The Right People" give the go ahead. If a Sheriff suddenly changes their policy to fully comply with Nordyke and issue for personal protection, they will tell us and get the word out to the residents of these counties to have them apply.

Fourth, do not screw this up for your fellow Calgunners thinking that you're the next Dick Heller. Do not let a criminal defense lawyer, or some other lawyer who has absolutely no skin in the game with the RKBA (besides Gura, Kilmer, Kates, Michel, Colodny and Davis). Any other lawyer that's chomping at the bit to take a case like this is likely another "Gorski". Remember Silveira!!!!

Are any of the powers to be on this forum pursuing either shall issue CCW or LOC via pressure on the legislature, AG or by lawsuit? It is only a matter of time until someone gets arrested for carrying a loaded weapon and will use the cases as a defense.

RP1911
04-20-2009, 7:59 PM
Let's not do that. Why fill out a CA AW permit that the RKBA says is unneeded? And why pay $$$ yearly fees and have to adhere to onerous storage/transpo requirements?

Hummm.

Wonder if Dominguez can use the Nordyke decision now.

mblat
04-20-2009, 8:18 PM
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Before anyone files a case over CCW, I want you to consider a few things.

First, applying for a CCW right now is dumb unless we get some intel from the Sheriffs stating that they are going to be changing their policy. A few sheriffs might go from Yellow to Green, but that's about it with Nordyke.

Second, applying to file a case against a sheriff is a bad idea due to the district court pool everywhere with the possible exception of the Eastern District. Los Angeles area and San Francisco area district courts are filled with district judges that hate RKBA and the Second Amendment with such a passion that they cannot be trusted with a case in front of them.

Third, even if you live in Eastern District, it's been repeatedly stated before: Wait until "The Right People" give the go ahead. If a Sheriff suddenly changes their policy to fully comply with Nordyke and issue for personal protection, they will tell us and get the word out to the residents of these counties to have them apply.

Fourth, do not screw this up for your fellow Calgunners thinking that you're the next Dick Heller. Do not let a criminal defense lawyer, or some other lawyer who has absolutely no skin in the game with the RKBA (besides Gura, Kilmer, Kates, Michel, Colodny and Davis). Any other lawyer that's chomping at the bit to take a case like this is likely another "Gorski". Remember Silveira!!!!

HEre is the problem. Regardless of what you , Michel , Gene Hoffman etc. wants ( and for good reasons ) ..... there will be the test case sooner or than later.
Somebody bound to get arrested for carrying and that somebody's lawyer, unless he is total idiot WILL bring up 2A defense.
There are two approaches - we can either pray that "somebody" will be otherwise "clean"..... or we can manufacture a case with "clean" plaintiff. I much rather see later... because chances of former to be true are fairly low. It is most likely to be some gang member/former felon.

1859sharps
04-20-2009, 9:35 PM
I think everyone needs to take two steps back and breath.

Nordyke might be a win, but don't kid your self about existing law....is still in full force. The powers that be are not going to just throw up their hands and say ok, we are going to remove law A,B, and C, because the 9th just incorporated the 2nd. They are going to claim the current law passes "reasonable", and we are gong to have to prove it doesn't.

This process needs to be done intelligently, with planning and most bang for the buck.

My 2 cents. don't rush out and file CCWs or AW permits. Let the right people digest this and offer advice to make the most out of the next steps.

We have waited this long... "2 more weeks" (or months etc) isn't much to ask. I know personally I want the next steps to add TEETH to Heller and Nordkyke, not weaken through well intentioned, but emotionally charged chaotic action. Lets be smart about the next move.

In mean time savor the win..... :thumbsup:

And a big ol' THANKS to all those who made this happen. The last 12 months have been very exciting.

lioneaglegriffin
04-20-2009, 10:46 PM
Now you're talking.

It wouldn't hurt for everyone to donate the cost of one box of ammo to the CGF.

.50 or .22? :D

Liberty1
04-20-2009, 11:46 PM
HEre is the problem. Regardless of what you , Michel , Gene Hoffman etc. wants ( and for good reasons ) ..... there will be the test case sooner or than later.
Somebody bound to get arrested for carrying and that somebody's lawyer, unless he is total idiot WILL bring up 2A defense.
There are two approaches - we can either pray that "somebody" will be otherwise "clean"..... or we can manufacture a case with "clean" plaintiff. I much rather see later... because chances of former to be true are fairly low. It is most likely to be some gang member/former felon.

Well, there is no better 2nd A criminal defendant then a totally innocent man about to go through a jury trial: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=150893

Gray Peterson
04-21-2009, 12:13 AM
HEre is the problem. Regardless of what you , Michel , Gene Hoffman etc. wants ( and for good reasons ) ..... there will be the test case sooner or than later.
Somebody bound to get arrested for carrying and that somebody's lawyer, unless he is total idiot WILL bring up 2A defense.
There are two approaches - we can either pray that "somebody" will be otherwise "clean"..... or we can manufacture a case with "clean" plaintiff. I much rather see later... because chances of former to be true are fairly low. It is most likely to be some gang member/former felon.

Well, it's mostly state criminal charges that one would be accused of, which have little to no bearing on how a federal court will rule.

That being said, Madison Society Foundation had pretty much stated that they want to file a CCW case on their website, however I just checked it and it got scrubbed out. Hmm... I believe, IIRC, that Madison Society Foundation had some to do with the Nordyke case, but the level of their involvement I simply cannot remember off the top of my head.

"Public Interest" litigation cases of this kind are nothing particularly new. As long as there is Article 3 standing (a denied registration or licensing app is the EASIEST way to get standing), the individual plaintiff has standing, regardless of whether or not he personally foots the bill, or a 501(c)(3) org such as Calguns Foundation, MSF, or NRA Legal Fund foots it. "Public Interest" foundation funded litigation allows a maximum of control of which plaintiffs get on the train. Great example of this was the Guy Montague Doe case against San Francisco Public Houshing Authority. A gay man in public housing was the perfect kind of case to file in San Francisco. Same with the Parker/Heller case which had two African-American women named Shelly Parker and Tracy Ambeau-Hanson, and a gay man named Tom Palmer. You see the theme here?

The point here is the break the back of the anti-gunners support structure from the progressive/liberal left and the "law and order" right. In less than a year, the support for more gun control went from 51% to 39% (Courtesy of the Supreme Court in the case of Heller as well as the public seeing the District of Columbia Government saying that total gun bans were their goal). Even the recent shootings and the media circus surrounding them isn't being effective at all, and in fact driving more calls for CCW law reform.

It's extraordinarily difficult to raise funds to attack a plaintiff challenging a gun law when they don't meet the typical "stereotypical gun owner". If the Brady and LCAV attacks the plaintiffs personally by casting any sort of aspersion that they are "rednecks" or "paranoid", a GLBT person (of which I am a part of being a gay man myself) can point out the gang rape attack of a lesbian in the East Bay, and their only response will be pure silence and/or avoiding the issue, and people watching at home can see it for what it is.

Extraordinary things will be happening in the next decade. You will see the death of the gun control movement, or at least to the point where their legitimacy is on par with the Council for Conservative Citizens in the public political square.

This is gonna get real fun. :lurk5:

cousinkix1953
04-21-2009, 12:34 AM
bwiese,

So now the battle field is "Reasonable Regulation" is this going to be Circuit Court by Circuit Court until SCOTUS finally rules on a National basis or is there a quicker way to get a uniform National Policy?

Oh Happy Day:)
Bill O'Reilly says that we should federalize all gun crimes. Maybe we should do the same thing with the other gun laws too. The antis won't have such an easy time of banning everything in site. What's legal in state; should be legal in 49 others. That goes for CCW permits, so-called assault weapons and everything else in between. It would be a helluva lot easier to enforce those few rules that we need...

FreshTapCoke
04-21-2009, 12:51 AM
Extraordinary things will be happening in the next decade. You will see the death of the gun control movement, or at least to the point where their legitimacy is on par with the Council for Conservative Citizens in the public political square.

This is gonna get real fun. :lurk5:


I predict one day, our history books will list The Brady Campaign alongside with the Klu Klux Klan.

Scold
04-21-2009, 1:19 AM
I predict one day, our history books will list The Brady Campaign alongside with the Klu Klux Klan.

This.

cousinkix1953
04-21-2009, 5:21 AM
I predict one day, our history books will list The Brady Campaign alongside with the Klu Klux Klan.
I would be happy if they were defunct...

N6ATF
04-21-2009, 4:13 PM
Bill O'Reilly says that we should federalize all gun crimes. Maybe we should do the same thing with the other gun laws too. The antis won't have such an easy time of banning everything in site. What's legal in state; should be legal in 49 others. That goes for CCW permits, so-called assault weapons and everything else in between. It would be a helluva lot easier to enforce those few rules that we need...

+infinity :eek:

yellowfin
04-21-2009, 4:15 PM
I predict one day, our history books will list The Brady Campaign alongside with the Klu Klux Klan. I would be happier if the former were treated like the latter.

yellowfin
04-21-2009, 4:17 PM
Bill O'Reilly says that we should federalize all gun crimes. Maybe we should do the same thing with the other gun laws too. The antis won't have such an easy time of banning everything in site. What's legal in state; should be legal in 49 others. That goes for CCW permits, so-called assault weapons and everything else in between. It would be a helluva lot easier to enforce those few rules that we need...

The only problem with that is the CCW issue and possibly NFA. That would put things in the hands of more leftist administrations like this one and make all states go by the worst states' laws rather than the best.

GuyW
04-21-2009, 5:09 PM
These lawsuits are much more dangerous to the elistists post-Nordyke, because now the plaintiff can sue them personally in federal court for violating a fundamental constitutional right...

Take their house, take their cars, take their toys, take their government pension....

.

ilbob
04-22-2009, 6:10 AM
HEre is the problem. Regardless of what you , Michel , Gene Hoffman etc. wants ( and for good reasons ) ..... there will be the test case sooner or than later.
Somebody bound to get arrested for carrying and that somebody's lawyer, unless he is total idiot WILL bring up 2A defense.
There are two approaches - we can either pray that "somebody" will be otherwise "clean"..... or we can manufacture a case with "clean" plaintiff. I much rather see later... because chances of former to be true are fairly low. It is most likely to be some gang member/former felon.
I am not sure a gang member or felon case would not be all that bad. No one here wants violent criminals to have guns, and neither do the courts. There is no chance that the courts are going to say violent criminals have a right to own firearms.

2ATom
04-22-2009, 6:20 AM
I think I am the only one here that can't figure out what this court case means. Can anyone enlighten me on how this case affects CCW's?

Theseus
04-22-2009, 10:07 AM
It doesn't!

Not directly anyway.

The situation is this. California has passed these laws arguing that it is not an individual right to keep and bear, it was a collective right. Now that we have Heller by the SCOTUS and the Nordyke incorporation we can begin to attack the laws on the premise that they infringe on the individuals right.

That better to understand? I hope I am not wrong on this. . . I was wrong once. . . Once! (For those Johnny Dangerously fans)

ilbob
04-22-2009, 10:52 AM
It doesn't!

Not directly anyway.

The situation is this. California has passed these laws arguing that it is not an individual right to keep and bear, it was a collective right. Now that we have Heller by the SCOTUS and the Nordyke incorporation we can begin to attack the laws on the premise that they infringe on the individuals right.

That better to understand? I hope I am not wrong on this. . . I was wrong once. . . Once! (For those Johnny Dangerously fans)

CA guns laws are based on the premise that you have no right at all as an individual to keep or bear arms. That whole premise has been thrown out.

Heller and Nordyke say the RTKBA is an individual right and CA can't infringe that right. What will happen now is litigation will decide what is an infringement and what is not.

My bets for CA:

The handgun roster goes away.

The AWB goes away.

The LOC ban goes away. CCW becomes shall issue. Or maybe CA is able to trade shall issue CC for LOC remaining illegal (like in Texas).



Not limited to CA:

Bans and near bans on ownership of commonly owned guns. Out the door as fast as you can get it into court.

Ammo and reloading bans. Nope. Limits on amount of ammo and components probably OK as long as it is based on some actual public safety issue, and there are some issues there, especially for those who live in close quarters to other people.

FA stuff. Maybe. Maybe not. I am guessing this will be a very sticky issue with some of us. We will want to jump in too early on this issue and risk screwing it up for everyone else. FA items by their very nature are not especially common so the "guns in common usage" argument that works so well for handguns and long guns with certain cosmetic features is harder to apply.

IMO the Hughes amendment is what we need to attack as opening up new states to FA items is not especially meaningful if the price of machine guns is prohibitive. I don't actually see a good attack on Hughes. There is the argument that there is little difference between an AR and an M16, but that is a two edged sword.

Not sure what will happen with the 1000 foot gun free school rules. But my guess is they go away.

Bans on guns in public buildings - probably stay. At least for many public buildings.

Magazine restrictions - likely go away.

Roadrunner
04-22-2009, 11:08 AM
The banning of guns in a public building could be a sticky issue for the state and local governments because it could be argued as it was in Arizona that it is an infringement on a persons right to deprive a person of their means of self defense between their car and the public building. Arizona's remedy to this was to provide an option for a public building to either provide gun lockers on the outside of the building or permit them in the building if no locker was provided.