PDA

View Full Version : What lawsuits are cooking?


pullnshoot25
04-21-2009, 11:05 AM
OK, so how many lawsuits are penned and ready to go to court? If there are any, what are they focused on? Freaking excited right now!

tango-52
04-21-2009, 11:17 AM
OK, so how many lawsuits are penned and ready to go to court? If there are any, what are they focused on? Freaking excited right now!

I doubt you will find any lawyers on this or other related sites willing to tip their hand before the papers are actually filed.

Tier One Arms
04-21-2009, 11:21 AM
Yes, this to me is just as important as the Nordyke decision.

pullnshoot25
04-21-2009, 11:36 AM
Figured as much, but I would love to hear which domino is going to fall first.

SwissFluCase
04-21-2009, 12:10 PM
Figured as much, but I would love to hear which domino is going to fall first.

Two weeks...

Regards,


SwissFluCase

DDT
04-21-2009, 12:10 PM
Well, there is already movement with the OAL against certain underground regulation. I think these are the most likely to bear fruit first. Afterall, they are already underway. Plus Theseus' suit is moving forward and will likely be a significant case in the "sensitive area" area. The roster itself is being directly attacked in D.C. with amicus briefs by "good Californians."

Seems like enough to keep us interested and entertained.

edwardm
04-21-2009, 12:10 PM
Need "good" plaintiffs first with "good" facts. There are a couple of CalGunners already set up in terms of both types of "good".

If I had to wager a guess, I'd say something dealing with non-public possession would be a good starter, to avoid too many issues given the "sensitive place" language in Nordyke. I.E. AWB/AW permits being lower hanging fruit.

OK, so how many lawsuits are penned and ready to go to court? If there are any, what are they focused on? Freaking excited right now!

CA_Libertarian
04-21-2009, 12:13 PM
Figured as much, but I would love to hear which domino is going to fall first.

I think CCW reform is probably first. Madison Society announced in October that they have CCW litigation in the pipeline, just waiting for Nordyke to be settled. IIRC, they said CGF was helping out on this one.

I also seem to recall an anouncement in regards to rights restoration in the pipeline. (IIRC, the multiple plaintiffs had issues where after their 10 years as a prohibited person, they were unable to purchase a gun.) This one doesn't affect most of us, but still an important case, IMO.

GuyW
04-21-2009, 12:54 PM
LOC is a better suit than CCW IMHO.

Under Heller, CCW can be regulated into obscurity, but not LOC.
.

N6ATF
04-25-2009, 12:56 PM
Seems like we have a lot of problems with cops going so far beyond their authority in regards to forcing people to ID themselves through warrantless searches, running serial numbers, turning off voice recorders, forcing people to give up their freedom to leave for so long it constitutes arrest...

Should we just give up trying to get them to not violate their oaths of office and the law in regards to UOC and focus on destroying the unloaded requirement altogether, then go after the inevitable harassment of LOC (as seen in Wisconsin, Virginia, Arizona...)?

Bizcuits
04-25-2009, 2:10 PM
Not sure whats cooking, but I'd love to hear more about the AW ban case with Hoffman :(

demnogis
04-25-2009, 2:11 PM
Wisconsin will be our precedent, I believe.

As more read about the [successful] legal action there, it may help inspire those on the fence who are afraid of police action.

hoffmang
04-25-2009, 2:44 PM
Under Heller, CCW can be regulated into obscurity, but not LOC.

That's a huge assumption on your part unsubstantiated by anything.

-Gene

CitaDeL
04-25-2009, 3:08 PM
LOC is a better suit than CCW IMHO.

Under Heller, CCW can be regulated into obscurity, but not LOC.
.



That's a huge assumption on your part unsubstantiated by anything.

-Gene

I realize that I'm preaching to the choir, but I think that it can be substantiated. Licensed concealed carry is the privilege, and unrestricted exposed carry is the right. In my laymens understanding, it is easier to demand what has been proven to be owed to you (ALA Heller and Nordyke), than to demand a privilege regulated by state law and issuing agencies eager to deny applicants and revoke with no good reason.

This is somewhat like what is playing out in Wisconsin which has no 'CCW' licensing and a 2A element in their State constitution. With the right secured, it would be easier to pursue the privilege.

eflatminor
04-25-2009, 4:20 PM
I would think the handgun ban in Chicago would be the first significant law to fall to our newly incorporated 2nd. I have no idea what might be on the list for CA, but I'm sure curious.

wash
04-25-2009, 4:32 PM
I don't think Illinois is in the area that the 9'th circuit court has influence so they can ignore Nordyke but I think it will help getting appeals heard if they do decide to ignore Nordyke.

I hope Chicago gets that fixed but I think they have to rely more on Heller than Nordyke.

hoffmang
04-25-2009, 5:28 PM
I realize that I'm preaching to the choir, but I think that it can be substantiated. Licensed concealed carry is the privilege, and unrestricted exposed carry is the right. In my laymens understanding, it is easier to demand what has been proven to be owed to you (ALA Heller and Nordyke), than to demand a privilege regulated by state law and issuing agencies eager to deny applicants and revoke with no good reason.


You ignore what happened in Ohio at your understanding's peril. Precedent makes it look like states can choose to either allow unfettered open carry or non discretionary CCW licensing. What Heller was saying was that states retained that basic choice. However, states can't choose to prohibit both.

-Gene

BigDogatPlay
04-25-2009, 5:45 PM
I don't think Illinois is in the area that the 9'th circuit court has influence so they can ignore Nordyke but I think it will help getting appeals heard if they do decide to ignore Nordyke.

I hope Chicago gets that fixed but I think they have to rely more on Heller than Nordyke.

I think Nordyke can have a strong bearing on what is happening in Chicago. I'm almost hoping that the city caves in light of it, just as San Francisco did post Heller. Illinois is a different circuit, yes, but the learned counsel all know how to read. When they see the Ninth deciding the way it did they are going to have to believe that trying to make the Chicago ban stand up to a Heller test (which it clearly can not) is a losing proposition that would likely eventually lead to incorporation in that district.

Which would open many of their draconian laws to examination / litigation just as Nordyke has done in the Ninth.

The anti's are going to have to accept some losses, I think, rather than risk it all on the SCOTUS.

hoffmang
04-25-2009, 5:55 PM
You can see what Alan Gura thinks (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/2009/04/24/progress-and-an-argument-date/) about Nordyke's impact on Chicago. Chicago seems hell bent on sending this issue to SCOTUS and for that I'd like to tip my hat to Richard Daley!

Nothing like incompetent opposition to make our lives easier.

-Gene

fairfaxjim
04-25-2009, 6:05 PM
You can see what Alan Gura thinks (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/2009/04/24/progress-and-an-argument-date/) about Nordyke's impact on Chicago. Chicago seems hell bent on sending this issue to SCOTUS and for that I'd like to tip my hat to Richard Daley!

Nothing like incompetent opposition to make our lives easier.

-Gene

At least Daley is dependably incompetent and intransigent!

Hell, he sent city buldozers in the night to tear up Meigs field to thumb his nose at the DOT and FAA!

I wouldn't be suprised to see him order the Chicago police to confiscate guns rather than abide by even a SCOTUS decision that he disliked. He should be in jail for contempt of mankind!!

BigDogatPlay
04-25-2009, 6:34 PM
Nothing like incompetent opposition to make our lives easier.

-Gene

Amen.... if they want to hand us the cudgels with which we can beat them, who are we to refuse?


:thumbsup:

CitaDeL
04-25-2009, 7:19 PM
You ignore what happened in Ohio at your understanding's peril. Precedent makes it look like states can choose to either allow unfettered open carry or non discretionary CCW licensing. What Heller was saying was that states retained that basic choice. However, states can't choose to prohibit both.

-Gene

Which choice have we in California?

171 (b), 626.9, 12025, 12031 makes possession of a functional and ready firearm a crime- in D.C. only an incomplete or disassembled firearm was acceptable, which is effectively what we have here.

12050 regulates licensing of concealed and exposed carry, yet all of California's metropolitan population centers are restrictive or no issue.

The way I see it, however naive I may sound, is that Heller has no effect on licensed privileges- Possession and carry of whole, functioning firearms on the other hand are reaffirmed. The case must be made that an unloaded or locked up firearm is not a weapon at all and as such constitutes a ban violating the second amendment in the same manner as D.C.'s overturned ban. I dont believe the state of California can choose between 'CCW' and unrestricted open carry- it's open carry or both open carry and 'CCW'.

hoffmang
04-25-2009, 7:22 PM
12050 regulates licensing of concealed and exposed carry, yet all of California's metropolitan population centers are restrictive or no issue.

That would be your problem right there. I expect that's going to get fixed forthwith.

I dont believe the state of California can choose between 'CCW' and unrestricted open carry- it's open carry or both open carry and 'CCW'.
That's fine that it is your opinion, but I'm telling you that the court system is unlikely to agree with your opinion.

-Gene

sierratangofoxtrotunion
04-25-2009, 7:26 PM
how many

27.

pullnshoot25
04-25-2009, 9:30 PM
27.

I had to look back through all my posts to find what this was in reference to.

Why 27? ;)

DDT
04-25-2009, 10:05 PM
forthwith is good timing.

avdrummerboy
04-25-2009, 10:11 PM
I'd like to see CCW reform be up front, which it sounds like it will be.

Liberty1
04-26-2009, 3:47 AM
You can see what Alan Gura thinks (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/2009/04/24/progress-and-an-argument-date/) about Nordyke's impact on Chicago. Chicago seems hell bent on sending this issue to SCOTUS and for that I'd like to tip my hat to Richard Daley!

Nothing like incompetent opposition to make our lives easier.

-Gene

You flying to Chicago? You want an HR218 companion? :43:

cousinkix1953
04-26-2009, 4:18 AM
At least Daley is dependably incompetent and intransigent!

Hell, he sent city buldozers in the night to tear up Meigs field to thumb his nose at the DOT and FAA!

I wouldn't be suprised to see him order the Chicago police to confiscate guns rather than abide by even a SCOTUS decision that he disliked. He should be in jail for contempt of mankind!!
The CHP has some AR-15's; but Daley's Gestapo already carries the same kind of military hardware issued to combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan...

CitaDeL
04-26-2009, 5:57 AM
That would be your problem right there. I expect that's going to get fixed forthwith.

That's fine that it is your opinion, but I'm telling you that the court system is unlikely to agree with your opinion.

-Gene

Yes, I get it. Nordyke has swept away some bad precident relating to 'CCW', but Nordyke cannot make a license to carry concealed (a regulated revokable privilege) into the right to keep and bear.

Pardon me while I retire to lament my inability to objectively assess the realities of the California judiciary. My apologies for my continued ignorance.

GarandFan
04-26-2009, 12:18 PM
I would think the handgun ban in Chicago would be the first significant law to fall to our newly incorporated 2nd. I have no idea what might be on the list for CA, but I'm sure curious.

I don't think Chicago's handgun ban will fall due to Nordyke. After all, Chicago is in the 7th circuit. I think it would have fallen regardless. But that a federal circuit court found (and strongly stated) incorporation via due process ... well ... it's going to bend the ear of the 7th circuit panel.

But I will say this ... Nordyke came down 3 days after Chicago filed their Appellee's Brief (available here http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/appellees_brief_mcdonald.pdf). Look it over a little.

What Nordyke's incorporation language DID do is demolish many of Chicago's primary arguments. And despite a strict "limited to self defense in the home" interpretation of Heller (like Nordyke did), should the 7th find incorporation then Chicago's ban on handguns in the home is out the door. Without question, one has a right to defend one's self and family, and likely others, outside the home as well ... but we are not yet to the point of defining that.

So Chicago's amici were due last Friday ... but I have not seen them yet. Maybe they were trying to include references to Nordyke (if so, I bet that was a scream). Then, this coming friday, Gura/Sigale/Halbrook will file the Appellant's reply brief. Most predict copious cites of Nordyke! Oral arguments are on 26 May.

This all takes time ... and sound, lasting jurisprudence isn't built in a day (nor even a decade).

Maestro Pistolero
04-26-2009, 1:01 PM
And despite a strict "limited to self defense in the home" interpretation of Heller (like Nordyke did), should the 7th find incorporation then Chicago's ban on handguns in the home is out the door.

Neither Nordyke nor Heller said anything about the right being limited to self defense in the home.

I keep seeing this misunderstanding over and over. The scope of the Heller case was to allow Dick Heller to carry his revolver in his home. That's it. But to reach that conclusion, Gura knew that the court would have to first address the larger issue of the individual right (not necessarily related to militia purposes).

Gura wisely baited the court with a humble request for remedy, that forced them to jump the hurdle of the individual right. The court does not have to give the plaintiff more remedy than was requested. But this is not a limitation on the right itself.

So, again, the scope of the Heller case is not, and should not be viewed as, a limitation on the means to immediate self defense in the home.

RomanDad
04-26-2009, 1:15 PM
Neither Nordyke nor Heller said anything about the right being limited to self defense in the home.

:thumbsup:

JDay
04-26-2009, 1:27 PM
I would think the handgun ban in Chicago would be the first significant law to fall to our newly incorporated 2nd. I have no idea what might be on the list for CA, but I'm sure curious.

http://www.uscourts.gov/images/Circuit-Map-outlined-rs2.gif

JDay
04-26-2009, 1:34 PM
Yes, I get it. Nordyke has swept away some bad precident relating to 'CCW', but Nordyke cannot make a license to carry concealed (a regulated revokable privilege) into the right to keep and bear.

Pardon me while I retire to lament my inability to objectively assess the realities of the California judiciary. My apologies for my continued ignorance.

And exactly where in the Second Amendment do the words "with a permit" or "privilege" appear?

GarandFan
04-26-2009, 1:55 PM
Neither Nordyke nor Heller said anything about the right being limited to self defense in the home.

I keep seeing this misunderstanding over and over.
...

So, again, the scope of the Heller case is not, and should not be viewed as, a limitation on the means to immediate self defense in the home.

Allow me to correct myself. Of course I agree with you, it is undeniably clear that self-defense isn't limited to the home. But what I said, or at least meant to say, was that a "strict interpretation" of Heller (like Nordyke took), suggests that self defense is limited to the home. This is what the anti-gunners will bring to court with them. To quote Nordyke ...

"If laws make such self-defense impossible in the most crucial place—the home —by rendering firearms useless, then they violate the Constitution."

"...does not directly impede the efficacy of self-defense or limit self defense in the home. Rather, it regulates gun possession in public places that are County property."

"To summarize: the Ordinance does not meaningfully impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their homes with usable firearms, the core of the right as Heller analyzed it. ... Finally, prohibiting firearm possession on municipal property fits within the exception from the Second Amendment for “sensitive places” that Heller recognized."

This strict interpretation is patently incorrect, but it WILL be the argument the anti-gunners take to court with them.

And they will lose ... but all this will require clarification and time.

gotgunz
04-26-2009, 3:34 PM
171 (b), 626.9, 12025, 12031 makes possession of a functional and ready firearm a crime- in D.C. only an incomplete or disassembled firearm was acceptable, which is effectively what we have here.


Not true! Many of the UOC cowboys have made the claim here and elsewhere that they can draw, insert mag, rack slide and be on target ready to fire (under pressure I might add :rolleyes:) in less than 2 seconds.

Now that doesn't sound like an incomplete or disassembled gun to me.

CSDGuy
04-26-2009, 3:43 PM
Not true! Many of the UOC cowboys have made the claim here and elsewhere that they can draw, insert mag, rack slide and be on target ready to fire (under pressure I might add :rolleyes:) in less than 2 seconds.

Now that doesn't sound like an incomplete or disassembled gun to me.
Can you simply draw and fire a firearm that has it's magazine removed and there's nothing in the pipe? A firearm is a weapon system and in order to fire as many times as it is designed to, it's magazine must be attached. Can a revolver fire without it's cylinder in place?

It could be argued that inserting a magazine and racking the slide complete the assembly of a weapon system and makes it therefore ready to fire. Removal of the magazine and ammunition from the weapon renders the firearm incomplete and as useful as a rock until it's reassembled...

GarandFan
04-26-2009, 3:48 PM
Not true! Many of the UOC cowboys have made the claim here and elsewhere that they can draw, insert mag, rack slide and be on target ready to fire (under pressure I might add :rolleyes:) in less than 2 seconds.

Under the open carry in CA, the idea is that you can carry a holstered and unloaded firearm, with charged mags in belt pouches?

If so ... and especially carrying openly ... drawing unloaded pistol from holster while drawing loaded mag from pouch, seating mag into pistol, and racking slide in less than 2 seconds? That is imminently doable, especially with practice.

eflatminor
04-26-2009, 6:53 PM
http://www.uscourts.gov/images/Circuit-Map-outlined-rs2.gif

Are you taking the piss? I'm aware of the circuits.

I'm no lawyer but I figured they could use Nordkye to advantage in the battle against Chicago.

gotgunz
04-26-2009, 7:35 PM
That is imminently doable, especially with practice.

Doable and probable, while under stress enough to warrant such action, is unlikely but not 100% unattainable.

I would venture to say that 99.9999999999% of the people UOC'ing are not capable of doing it in under 5 seconds while under attack with any measurable degree of accuracy; which should cause everybody a great deal of concern.

The original post was laced with sarcasm btw.

CitaDeL
04-26-2009, 8:09 PM
Not true! Many of the UOC cowboys have made the claim here and elsewhere that they can draw, insert mag, rack slide and be on target ready to fire (under pressure I might add :rolleyes:) in less than 2 seconds.

Now that doesn't sound like an incomplete or disassembled gun to me.

I am one of the 'cowboys' you are refering to.:cowboy:

And for the lack of a better description- a semi-auto with an empty magazine with ammunition carried seperately or a revolver without cartriges in the cylinder is a non-operational mechanism, unable to function as designed due to the absence of one or more parts. (Which is why I believe the previously cited statutes are a ban ALA D.C.'s overturned functional firearm ban.)

As far as drawing from a holster, dropping an empty magazine, inserting a loaded magazine and chambering a round- this is an exersize that EVERYONE carrying an autoloader should be at least familiar with. Most can get this done in 5-10 seconds on the first try- and with practice it can go faster. As for under pressure- I doubt that anyhone is going to win any races with an already drawn weapon, but muscle memory and the practice will keep you on task in case you need to make your weapon useful.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-26-2009, 8:22 PM
And exactly where in the Second Amendment do the words "with a permit" or "privilege" appear?

What definition of the word "bear" have you found that includes hiding(concealing) something?

N6ATF
04-26-2009, 8:25 PM
It's not the right to bare arms.

Kid Stanislaus
04-26-2009, 9:27 PM
You can see what Alan Gura thinks (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/2009/04/24/progress-and-an-argument-date/) about Nordyke's impact on Chicago. Chicago seems hell bent on sending this issue to SCOTUS and for that I'd like to tip my hat to Richard Daley!-Gene


Don't count on SCOTUS to lay down a series of pro-gun decisions, we barely scraped by on Heller.

GuyW
04-27-2009, 11:03 AM
What definition of the word "bear" have you found that includes hiding(concealing) something?

"Bear" does not exclude "concealed" at all.

It also does not specify "in the hand", "in the scabbord", "slung over the back/shoulder", "carried against the shoulder", "always in the hand", "in the holster", "in the belt" etc etc, just like it doesn't specify "non-concealed".
.

GunSlinga
04-27-2009, 2:54 PM
What definition of the word "bear" have you found that includes hiding (concealing) something?

How about this one from Heller:

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed.1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment ... indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ . . . We think that Justice GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

128 S.Ct. 2783, 2793 (bold added). In the clothing or in a pocket is usually concealed.

Decoligny
04-28-2009, 10:11 AM
Under the open carry in CA, the idea is that you can carry a holstered and unloaded firearm, with charged mags in belt pouches?

If so ... and especially carrying openly ... drawing unloaded pistol from holster while drawing loaded mag from pouch, seating mag into pistol, and racking slide in less than 2 seconds? That is imminently doable, especially with practice.

For those who don't have anything wrong with their hands, i.e. arthritis. This limitation makes the "2 seconds" an impossibility for many people, thus leaving only those with no physical limitations and those who through practice have perfected the "fast load". And what about that one time when you slip and drop the magazine. Looks like you have a gun that has indeed been rendered useless for the purposes of self-defense.

Just because some of us can "fast load" doesn't mean that the weapon is "ready for use".

Roadrunner
04-28-2009, 10:59 AM
If a person really wants to understand the History of laws regulating concealed weapons, they should obtain a copy of Clayton Cramer's book "Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic; Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform". For those interested, the ISBN number is 0275966151.

In a nut shell, like all gun laws, the first laws against concealed carry were supposed to prevent "gun violence" from occurring. However, in that day, politicians and in one example a California Supreme Court Justice chose to violate those laws and engaged in dueling anyway. So, even in the mid 19th century gunlaws failed to prevent crime.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-28-2009, 12:53 PM
I've seen people post quotes attributed to the founding fathers about their dislike of concealment, along the lines of it being something only shady people do, does your book happen to have anything like that? I can't think of where to look.

If a person really wants to understand the History of laws regulating concealed weapons, they should obtain a copy of Clayton Cramer's book "Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic; Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform". For those interested, the ISBN number is 0275966151.

In a nut shell, like all gun laws, the first laws against concealed carry were supposed to prevent "gun violence" from occurring. However, in that day, politicians and in one example a California Supreme Court Justice chose to violate those laws and engaged in dueling anyway. So, even in the mid 19th century gunlaws failed to prevent crime.

DDT
04-28-2009, 1:14 PM
And exactly where in the Second Amendment do the words "with a permit" or "privilege" appear?

Same place it appears in the First. So, parades, marches and other public forms of free speech need a permit. It's not an undue burden. and it protects the public from blocked streets etc.

CCW permits (if they are not an undue burden) also protect the public by filtering out (some) prohibited persons.

GuyW
04-28-2009, 1:44 PM
Same place it appears in the First.

The 2nd is the only Amendment that says, "shall not be infringed".

Do those words mean anything, or were the Founding Fathers just ignorant bumpkins??
.

nobody_special
04-28-2009, 1:45 PM
Same place it appears in the First. So, parades, marches and other public forms of free speech need a permit. It's not an undue burden. and it protects the public from blocked streets etc.

CCW permits (if they are not an undue burden) also protect the public by filtering out (some) prohibited persons.

As I pointed out in the other thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=177240), the Supreme Court has AFAIK never upheld such a broad licensing requirement for an individual's exercise of a fundamental right.

The best analogue I've seen is the regulation of strip clubs, but even that is narrowly directed at a particular form of expression. Licensing possession in public is comparatively a very broad regulation, and it effects every aspect of the 2nd amendment.

DDT
04-28-2009, 1:48 PM
As I pointed out in the other thread, the Supreme Court has AFAIK never upheld such a broad licensing requirement for an individual exercise of a fundamental right.


the supreme court has upheld regulating public displays of free speech. I think you have a much stronger case against registration being unconstitutional or "purchase permits" as some states have as those are broad licensing requirements. But, licensing requirements on exercising the right in certain areas will almost certainly be deemed constitutional.

nobody_special
04-29-2009, 10:41 AM
the supreme court has upheld regulating some public displays of free speech
Fixed that for you. That's not quite the same as requiring a license to speak in public at all.

DDT
04-29-2009, 10:45 AM
Fixed that for you. That's not quite the same as requiring a license to speak in public at all.

You are correct. But UOC, LCC etc. are all legal without a permit. I guess we'll have to see what the courts say as nothing you or I do here arguing how much intervention the government can have wrt "bearing" arms will mean squat in the long run. I understand you position and I am confident you understand mine.

Liberty1
04-29-2009, 10:47 AM
As I pointed out in the other thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=177240), the Supreme Court has AFAIK never upheld such a broad licensing requirement for an individual's exercise of a fundamental right.

The best analogue I've seen is the regulation of strip clubs, but even that is narrowly directed at a particular form of expression. Licensing possession in public is comparatively a very broad regulation, and it effects every aspect of the 2nd amendment.

And even still you can walk naked in CA on a public street provided you don't violate 314 PC. At least my sidearm will be clothed in a holster. Now for my longarm, it may be naked however with only a thin strap over the shoulder ;).