PDA

View Full Version : What issues are the "low-hanging fruit" that we go after first?


CA_Libertarian
04-22-2009, 2:30 PM
Post-incorporation, it seems we are in an unprecedented position to make sweeping changes in a relatively rapid manner (rapid compared to the decades it took for all those bad laws to pass).

While I'm sure the "right people" are already evaluating options, I figured I'd toss in my $1.05 (that's my $0.02 plus inflation and applicable taxes).

I fear that many value CCW reform over carry rights reform. Bear in mind that CCW is a privilege. Even with "shall-issue" that permit is going to be a privilege like a driver's license. As long as all permitees have to follow the same rules, they can do just about anything they want to limit the privilege (or abolish it completely).

That permit does many wonderful things for the permitee. Allowing you to choose to conceal your firearm is only one of them. That permission slip exempts you from the 12031 prohibition on loaded carry. It exempts you from the 626.9 "gun-free school zone act." It allows you to carry just about everywhere you want to go with complete disregard for the maze of carry laws the rest of us endure.

But, when the legislature gets slapped down for setting up discretionary issue, do you think they're going to take it lying down? I think they'll respond by gutting out the privileges the permit currently allots.

Simply put, CCW reform alone will be an empty victory as the legislature will almost certainly strip CCW holders of the perks of being exempt from the restrictions on the books. Imagine a CCW that doesn't allow you to also carry within 1500' of a school or to carry a loaded firearm in the city! Imagine a permit that only exempts you from the 12025 concealed firearms ban.

For this reason, we need to couple the CCW reform fight with the rights restoration fight.

The loaded firearms restrictions (PC12031) and the "gun-free school zone" law (PC626.9) are both easy to challenge and would provide the most bang for our bucks, and make CCW reform far more meaningful.

elenius
04-22-2009, 2:37 PM
I am guessing it may be best for the school zone challenge to wait until the "sensitive areas" part of Nordyke has been appealed to SCOTUS (if indeed they will appeal).

Publius
04-22-2009, 2:43 PM
The loaded firearms restrictions (PC12031) and the "gun-free school zone" law (PC626.9) are both easy to challenge and would provide the most bang for our bucks, and make CCW reform far more meaningful.

You'd have to challenge the federal gun-free school zone act too to get any mileage out of the latter.

DDT
04-22-2009, 2:47 PM
You'd have to challenge the federal gun-free school zone act too to get any mileage out of the latter.

State law and federal law are no longer distiguishable. With incorporation the limits on the states are applicable to the feds and vice versa. If you negate the state GFSZ law the fed goes away. (This is assuming the state distance remains 1000'. If it changes to 1500' the text of the opinion would be critical)

AngelDecoys
04-22-2009, 2:51 PM
"What issues are the "low-hanging fruit" that we go after first?"

My guess would be to finish the DC handgun roster lawsuit first. Since CGF is helping to fund it, i would think we finish that before moving forward.

After that, I can only speculate. Perhaps the Nordykes appeal. Perhaps something with "sensitive areas." Whatever is challenged will need to be strategically planned as a loss isn't something we can afford.

I'll hazard a guess that it will all be speculation until the 'right people' actually file in court.

CCWFacts
04-22-2009, 2:54 PM
I am guessing it may be best for the school zone challenge to wait until the "sensitive areas" part of Nordyke has been appealed to SCOTUS (if indeed they will appeal).

Didn't Heller itself talk about "sensitive areas"? It doesn't define what they are, but they can't possibly be "public places in general", or "near a school" and so on. "Sensitive areas" is going to be found to be narrowly-defined. I'm not worried about it. I think it clearly means places that already have on-site security, like metal detectors and so on. It's impossible to argue that a place is "sensitive" if it doesn't currently have any security. I think the fears over "public roads are sensitive areas" or "the city is a sensitive area" are totally unfounded. Yes, the leg. might try that but it will be laughed out of court.

demnogis
04-22-2009, 2:56 PM
State law and federal law are no longer distiguishable. With incorporation the limits on the states are applicable to the feds and vice versa. If you negate the state GFSZ law the fed goes away. (This is assuming the state distance remains 1000'. If it changes to 1500' the text of the opinion would be critical)
I believe Montana has done this. They do not acknowledge the Fed GFSZ interstate-commerce law.

Also, if CA extends the "School Zone" boundary to 1500 ft, they would have digressed from the fed GFSZ law. We need the state to make a determination that only the grounds of a school are considered a "sensitive area", to eradicate the GFSZ law, that unlawfully infringes on our RKBA (specifically, bearing arms). No less crimes of violent nature have been committed since 626.9/626.95 have been passed. If anything, more crimes have been committed within "Gun Free [x] Zones" because the victims are assuredly unarmed.

bwiese
04-22-2009, 3:04 PM
Nordyke will add much additional kick to already-in-progress work on the Roster amd "unsafe handguns: this stuff is on front burner, kettle's boiling, and nobody has to get arrested for this to go forward.

We already have good case/material and had DC<->California interplay, so we just got a big bonus boost on Monday.

One of the big things we've done here in CA via CGN is render certain laws fairly irrelevant - i.e., scooting around AW ban, using single-action revolver and single-shot pistol exemptions against the Roster, etc. [We may or may not need to NeRF, given collision in timing.]

It's much easier to take down a law if it's been fairly well mooted first. Waving an AR reg'd AW with a pistol grip vs. a MonsterMan-gripped AR side by side - w/only difference being some extra plastic filler material behind the grip - higher court judges will see the arbitrariness and any fear they might of had (due to not being gun people) of "letting weapons of war onto the streets" will be vastly diluted.

RobG
04-22-2009, 3:15 PM
Just let me know when to apply...:D
http://advanced-armament.com/spr_m4.asp

CA_Libertarian
04-22-2009, 3:26 PM
You'd have to challenge the federal gun-free school zone act too to get any mileage out of the latter.

The federal FGSZ has already been challenged and found unconstitutional. It's just back with a few extra words attached - the same "Commerce Clause" claim the court rejected when they slapped it down the first time. I doubt any federal prosecutor or judge would seriously try to enforce it, and I'm certain SCOTUS would eagerly slap it down again if it came up.

I think it's probably safe for us to ignore it like most of the free states do.

CCWFacts
04-22-2009, 3:26 PM
Nordyke will add much additional kick to already-in-progress work on the Roster amd "unsafe handguns: this stuff is on front burner, kettle's boiling, and nobody has to get arrested for this to go forward.

Right, it sounds like the roster / not-unsafe issue, while it may be among the less exciting goals, is the easiest and first. That's good; it's better to build on a series of wins than to try to go for the whole enchilada all at once.

After that, I hope CCW is the next target. Nordyke explicitly says, "Hickman has evaporated" and Hickman was what was preventing us from getting CCWs on 2A grounds.

Untamed1972
04-22-2009, 3:34 PM
The federal FGSZ has already been challenged and found unconstitutional. It's just back with a few extra words attached - the same "Commerce Clause" claim the court rejected when they slapped it down the first time. I doubt any federal prosecutor or judge would seriously try to enforce it, and I'm certain SCOTUS would eagerly slap it down again if it came up.

I think it's probably safe for us to ignore it like most of the free states do.

so even though it was struck down they can add a couple extra words and bring it back?

If it was struck down then why hasn't the CA GFSZ been struck down as well?

yellowfin
04-22-2009, 3:48 PM
So what we need the extra easy wins for is not because they pertain to CCW, but because they will cite Nordyke and thus canonize it, correct?

smallshot13
04-22-2009, 3:57 PM
If one were to build a house (or a public building) one would not start with the roof, but rather the foundation. The question is "where to start" and that seems to be IMHO right from the language in the Nordyke decision supporting incorporation, along with the foundational elements the decsion was built upon Heller. From that foundation, one could construct a reasonable postion that starts from unfettered open carry by anyone, progressing (regressing?) to the present and unreasonable set of regulatory restrictions we now face. Somewhere in the middle is a pont of 'current reasonablness' that can form our 'current target'.

The most knowledgeable on this site seem to have that strategy in mind, to not overlook a solid foundation in our excitement to taste the fruit, especially before it is ripe, leaving us with nothing more than a bitter taste.

I am anxious for my right to 'keep and bear arms' to be recognized, not because I would carry (bear) at all times, or even most times, but simply for the value of that recognition on the limits of the government. The Nordyke decision includes reason and foundation far beyond what I thought even possessed by the 9th. We should use that as a foundation to build a platform from which we can 'safely' reach the low hanging fruit, at a time when it matures.

IMHO Nordyke language gives us solid ground on which to build this foundation, recognizing that the 2nd was clearly intended to secure the right to self protection, whether it be from an individual or government tyranny, and it recognizes that right extends over State and local law.

pg 4498 [13] : Heller tells us that the Second Amendment's guarantee revolves around armed self-defense. If laws make such self-defense impossible ............ by rendering firearms useless, then they violate the Constitution. The .......... restricts the discussion to the home, but it is not a far construct to recognize that the right of self-defense extends well beyond the home, approaching our right to protect ourselves from government tyranny and/or personal attack, literally in that order of importance. For if we continue to live in a society where we fear the government more than we do each other, we and our childrens children are doomed.

paradox
04-22-2009, 4:08 PM
As I said in this thread:
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=175475

The language in Heller and Nordyke makes the low hanging fruit those bans on firearms within residences. The ball started with the SF public housing handgun ban, but we should push the momentum to include all bans of keeping and baring within the home.

That combined with the fact that the UC/CSU/CC systems are government run leads me to claim that the lowest hanging fruit of all is challenging the ban on arms in on campus residence halls.

bellson
04-22-2009, 5:06 PM
Nordyke will add much additional kick to already-in-progress work on the Roster amd "unsafe handguns: this stuff is on front burner, kettle's boiling, and nobody has to get arrested for this to go forward.

We already have good case/material and had DC<->California interplay, so we just got a big bonus boost on Monday.

One of the big things we've done here in CA via CGN is render certain laws fairly irrelevant - i.e., scooting around AW ban, using single-action revolver and single-shot pistol exemptions against the Roster, etc. [We may or may not need to NeRF, given collision in timing.]

It's much easier to take down a law if it's been fairly well mooted first. Waving an AR reg'd AW with a pistol grip vs. a MonsterMan-gripped AR side by side - w/only difference being some extra plastic filler material behind the grip - higher court judges will see the arbitrariness and any fear they might of had (due to not being gun people) of "letting weapons of war onto the streets" will be vastly diluted.

Nice!

SwissFluCase
04-22-2009, 5:07 PM
As I said in this thread:
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=175475

The language in Heller and Nordyke makes the low hanging fruit those bans on firearms within residences. The ball started with the SF public housing handgun ban, but we should push the momentum to include all bans of keeping and baring within the home.

That combined with the fact that the UC/CSU/CC systems are government run leads me to claim that the lowest hanging fruit of all is challenging the ban on arms in on campus residence halls.

So by this logic would you mean to say that simple possesion in the home of AW or +10 mags would take precednce over CCW? The roster would certainly fall under this logic.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Publius
04-22-2009, 5:16 PM
The federal FGSZ has already been challenged and found unconstitutional. It's just back with a few extra words attached - the same "Commerce Clause" claim the court rejected when they slapped it down the first time. I doubt any federal prosecutor or judge would seriously try to enforce it, and I'm certain SCOTUS would eagerly slap it down again if it came up.

True, they added some jurisdictional language to get around U.S. v. Lopez, but it's still arguably unconstitutional. Then again, I think a lot of other laws are unconstitutional that haven't been struck down, so who knows. :)

If it was struck down then why hasn't the CA GFSZ been struck down as well?

Because the original federal GFSZA was struck down on Commerce Clause grounds, and that's not applicable to state laws. It's a federal enumerated powers issue.

paradox
04-22-2009, 5:16 PM
So by this logic would you mean to say that simple possesion in the home of AW or +10 mags would take precednce over CCW? The roster would certainly fall under this logic.


For the >10 round mags, I love the bone thrown in Nordyke about the Mumbai attacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_attacks

When you're confronting 10 armed terrorists at the sea shore, you sure as hell want to be able to double tap if not mozambique each of the bastards.

tube_ee
04-22-2009, 6:09 PM
and the real reason it's always scared the crap out of the antis...

It gets ordinary people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights on a regular basis.

Once they start doing that, they tend not to tolerate additional attempts to restrict their rights, and in fact want them expanded.

Which is why no shall-issue state has ever increased its gun restrictions after passing their CCW law.

Shall-issue will end gun control in California. Which is why it needs to be at or near the top of the list, IMHO.

--Shannon

7x57
04-22-2009, 6:19 PM
It gets ordinary people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights on a regular basis.


I think this is likely true. Remember, the reason the lie about the 2A being about sporting arms is not just that it allows going after black rifles. It also starts restricting the franchise to country folk, who hunt the most. The importance about talking about self defense is that it restores the franchise to the vast urban population. And after home defense, CCW seems to do that most effectively.

That is why CC buys more than OC: a lot of people will CC when they wouldn't face the social stigma of OC. Extend the franchise first, and all those CCW holders will be that much easier to sell on other issues. Creating gunnies and a culture of self-defense buys more in the long run than anything else.

7x57

Ford8N
04-22-2009, 6:25 PM
It's much easier to take down a law if it's been fairly well mooted first. Waving an AR reg'd AW with a pistol grip vs. a MonsterMan-gripped AR side by side - w/only difference being some extra plastic filler material behind the grip - higher court judges will see the arbitrariness and any fear they might of had (due to not being gun people) of "letting weapons of war onto the streets" will be vastly diluted.

Excellent! But what is the total estimated time till we can get rid of the MonsterMan and be like Free America across the border?

D.R.E.
04-22-2009, 7:40 PM
One of the big things we've done here in CA via CGN is render certain laws fairly irrelevant - i.e., scooting around AW ban, using single-action revolver and single-shot pistol exemptions against the Roster, etc. [We may or may not need to NeRF, given collision in timing.]

It's much easier to take down a law if it's been fairly well mooted first. Waving an AR reg'd AW with a pistol grip vs. a MonsterMan-gripped AR side by side - w/only difference being some extra plastic filler material behind the grip - higher court judges will see the arbitrariness and any fear they might of had (due to not being gun people) of "letting weapons of war onto the streets" will be vastly diluted.

That's a nice point!

One downside though is that such demonstrations also give easily understood examples of the implications of loopholes, allowing "them" to make the same arguments to close them --- i.e., concretely showing that a bunch of allowed things are basically identical to what was intended to be disallowed and thus should be outlawed.

In any case, any good weapon can harm you if you don't know what you are doing so I am certainly not arguing against such moot-arguments. Hopefully such things can get the safe gun list filed as it should be.

GunSlinga
04-22-2009, 7:59 PM
The federal FGSZ has already been challenged and found unconstitutional. It's just back with a few extra words attached - the same "Commerce Clause" claim the court rejected when they slapped it down the first time. I doubt any federal prosecutor or judge would seriously try to enforce it, and I'm certain SCOTUS would eagerly slap it down again if it came up.

I think it's probably safe for us to ignore it like most of the free states do.

It looks like this Maloney lawyer in NY who is trying to get to SCOTUS on a nunchuck case wrote a law review article about the GFSZ Act like more than 10 yrs ago. Go to http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_murphy.txt and scroll down to footnote 1 where they mention James M. Maloney, Shooting for an Omnipotent Congress: The Constitutionality of Federal Regulation of Intrastate Firearms Possession.

the_quark
04-22-2009, 8:51 PM
Right, it sounds like the roster / not-unsafe issue, while it may be among the less exciting goals, is the easiest and first. That's good; it's better to build on a series of wins than to try to go for the whole enchilada all at once.

It is absolutely right that what we need to do is have wins...of any sort. 2nd Amendment; due process; getting local ordinances dropped; whatever. If we win a bunch at once, no one in a decade will remember why. They'll just remember that "Heller came out and then all the gun laws went down, so don't even bother passing new gun laws."

-TQ

KylaGWolf
04-22-2009, 9:42 PM
so even though it was struck down they can add a couple extra words and bring it back?

If it was struck down then why hasn't the CA GFSZ been struck down as well?

Reason being is state law can over rule a federal law IF the state law is more restrictive.

KylaGWolf
04-22-2009, 9:44 PM
Also my .02 cents. I think we should challenge the school free zone first. In all its pure lunacy that they enforce it 24/7. Then again we all know that the law is a stupid one in the first place. It doesn't stop crime near the schools. It was a smoke screen.

demnogis
04-22-2009, 10:57 PM
Would it be possible to get an injunction on 626.9 and 626.95, testing the constitutionality of the laws post Nordyke?

The fact of the matter is these laws directly prevent us from exercising our right to bear arms.

Restricting possession on K-12 school grounds should be the only sensitive area clause if there ever was one.

TatankaGap
04-22-2009, 11:17 PM
and the real reason it's always scared the crap out of the antis...

It gets ordinary people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights on a regular basis.

Once they start doing that, they tend not to tolerate additional attempts to restrict their rights, and in fact want them expanded.

Which is why no shall-issue state has ever increased its gun restrictions after passing their CCW law.

Shall-issue will end gun control in California. Which is why it needs to be at or near the top of the list, IMHO.

--Shannon

Shall-Issue would fortify the gun culture and legal rights permanently because it gets lots of people into their guns in a meaningful daily experience - and desensitizes others to being scared of armed citizens - but Heller says that concealed permits are not necessarily the right covered by the 2A -

Heller most supports the right to loaded open carry -

Things that impede the right to travel and/or inter-state commerce such as CA specific regulations and restrictions that are such that most private gun sales will not 'ship to CA' - I would include in this hi-cap mags and weapons with hi-cap mags, semi-auto AKs, ARs, Shotguns, etc. with detachable mags as the top priority - Otherwise, can I bring an SKS that takes AK-47 detachable mags to CA for some shooting fun in the mountains?

Fun, fun, fun.....

PS - we are the 'right people' -:79:

AC Gould
04-22-2009, 11:48 PM
Not being a lawyer, or even a 'para-lawyer' like some of the folks on this board, I wonder what they might think about challenging the reciprosity of CCWs issued in other states( e.g. Utah, NV, Florida, etc). Prior to incorporation, states had the ability to decide whose CCW they would recognize and whose they would not. Now that the 9th has ruled, would states still have the ability to not recognize another state's CCW? This may well be the way to force CA into shall issue if the state would have to recognize another states permit. Post your thoughts.... :43:

DDT
04-23-2009, 12:07 AM
Not being a lawyer, or even a 'para-lawyer' like some of the folks on this board, I wonder what they might think about challenging the reciprosity of CCWs issued in other states( e.g. Utah, NV, Florida, etc). Prior to incorporation, states had the ability to decide whose CCW they would recognize and whose they would not. Now that the 9th has ruled, would states still have the ability to not recognize another state's CCW? This may well be the way to force CA into shall issue if the state would have to recognize another states permit. Post your thoughts.... :43:

It is interesting. I could certainly see the courts viewing CCW permit like a driver's license. While many professional licenses are not recognized across state lines I don't know of anyone who doesn't recognize interstate driver's licenses. It may be that they will accept, for example, Utah licenses but only for Utah residents. While this would open our state up for residents of other states it would still keep it shut down for the average Californian.

yellowfin
04-23-2009, 12:31 AM
Not being a lawyer, or even a 'para-lawyer' like some of the folks on this board, I wonder what they might think about challenging the reciprosity of CCWs issued in other states( e.g. Utah, NV, Florida, etc). Prior to incorporation, states had the ability to decide whose CCW they would recognize and whose they would not. Now that the 9th has ruled, would states still have the ability to not recognize another state's CCW? This may well be the way to force CA into shall issue if the state would have to recognize another states permit. Post your thoughts.... :43:
That's a very good thought and a very good opportunity. It would take a LOT of analysis to see which states should best do that and how to align legal resources and get everything all perfectly lined up to do that.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-23-2009, 1:24 AM
Sorry to all of those that have their hopes set on CCW reform, but it will not come from Nordyke, much less Heller...at least not directly.

If you recall, Heller made it clear that CCW is not protected by the 2nd Amendment...

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, 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.

CA will follow much like Ohio and only be granted increased access to CCW's when the populous/politicians gets scared/tired of seeing folks open carry their firearms. Open carry will be our vehicle towards concealed carry, but don't get your hopes up...it will likely be one of the last reforms here in CA.

What we are likely to see next here in CA is a continuation of exactly what Heller protects...bans against handguns in the home. The roster will be next. Then AWB because anything with the word "ban" in it is begging for litigation on 2A grounds. Open carry will likely come in after the "bans" are taken care of. And only after we can loaded open carry will we see CCW reform.

GunSlinga
04-23-2009, 6:08 AM
Sorry to all of those that have their hopes set on CCW reform, but it will not come from Nordyke, much less Heller...at least not directly.

If you recall, Heller made it clear that CCW is not protected by the 2nd Amendment...

I don't think they really made that clear. Heller went on to say:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."


It's the dog that didn't bark here. They don't ever say that complete carry bans or irrational carry licensing standards are constitutional, even though in the passage that FreedomIsNotFree quotes they do talk about the history.

So its still possible that SCOTUS could look into whether the standards that a state applies for carry licensing are kosher and could even say that a total ban on carrying by ordinary citizens (aka, not cops) is unconstitutional.

PatriotnMore
04-23-2009, 6:46 AM
I have a legal question, in respect to the ambiguous language used in Heller, and in Nordyke. Wouldn't it be wise to have the courts rule on just what, and how the meaning of those words applies to the ruling?

Otherwise, some challenges are going to get wrapped up into a, what is the true interpretation/meaning game. Which will cause a costly appeal process up to the SCOTUS, when the issue could be settled before a challenge is brought, eliminating the confusion, and cost.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-23-2009, 7:14 AM
I think this is likely true. Remember, the reason the lie about the 2A being about sporting arms is not just that it allows going after black rifles. It also starts restricting the franchise to country folk, who hunt the most. The importance about talking about self defense is that it restores the franchise to the vast urban population. And after home defense, CCW seems to do that most effectively.

That is why CC buys more than OC: a lot of people will CC when they wouldn't face the social stigma of OC. Extend the franchise first, and all those CCW holders will be that much easier to sell on other issues. Creating gunnies and a culture of self-defense buys more in the long run than anything else.

7x57


That's brilliant. I (almost entirely) agree. Politicians who favor VD do keep getting re-elected. So, there are clearly a lot of people who favor the idea also. Getting the rest of We The People to change their minds is clearly important. Not only will they then stop re-electing such trash, they'll stop pushing for restrictions & will start pushing for more freedom.

But, as noted elsewhere, HELLER doesn't protect CCW as much as it protects LOC. The main thing though is that the ball won't start rolling until someone pushes it first. It also helps a lot if that someone is seen to be pushing. IOW, urbanites won't even apply for CCW until they're shown that there's a new game in town.

That initial 'push' won't come from any number of people hiding the fact that they carry. It will come (IMHO) from those willing (like me & others here) to carry openly. Willing to SHOW The People that there's a new game in town.

My desire for LOC isn't because I want to whistle "Do not forsake me, oh my darling" as I stroll down the street with a hawgleg on my hip. My desire is to educate The People that the Right to protect themselves IS their Right. That they have the Right to the means of self defense as well.

Once the message gets out, I'll quite happily buy a shoulder holster for my .38 & hide the thing. But first the word has to get out & LOC is the quickest way of doing that.

The Raisuli

Aegis
04-23-2009, 7:37 AM
In my opinion, either shall issue CCW or LOC must be a priority and then the other issues can be addressed. Based on Heller and incorporation, California's cannot continue to deny law abiding people the right to defend themselves outside of the home.

I live about one hour away from a war zone (Mexico). So Cal is filled with gang bangers and illegal alien criminals. It would be nice to have sporting rifles in CA, but a sporting rife will not do someone too much good if they are out with their family and are confronted by thugs.

Untamed1972
04-23-2009, 7:58 AM
Reason being is state law can over rule a federal law IF the state law is more restrictive.

Yes....but if the LESS restrictive fed. law was found unconstitutional, then how can a MORE restrictive state law also not be unconstitutional?

Untamed1972
04-23-2009, 8:07 AM
It is interesting. I could certainly see the courts viewing CCW permit like a driver's license. While many professional licenses are not recognized across state lines I don't know of anyone who doesn't recognize interstate driver's licenses. It may be that they will accept, for example, Utah licenses but only for Utah residents. While this would open our state up for residents of other states it would still keep it shut down for the average Californian.

Although I would argue that "professional licenses" and even drivers licenses are NOT constitutionally guaranteed rights like 2A now has become, the aforementioned are considered privileges.

As I've said before 2A needs to become recognized and protected like all other BOR rights. I need no ones permission to travel across state lines, or speak or practice religion in another state. Why should 2A be any different?

edwardm
04-23-2009, 8:48 AM
Sorry to all of those that have their hopes set on CCW reform, but it will not come from Nordyke, much less Heller...at least not directly.

If you recall, Heller made it clear that CCW is not protected by the 2nd Amendment...

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152153; Abbott333. For example, 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.



There's a little more to the CCW ban reasoning not cited here, but I think discussed by Eugene Volokh (though I think his overall analysis is flawed, this brings up an interesting historical perspective). It could be argued that a citizen in public with an openly carried arm, be it concealable or not, has made certain intentions clear, i.e. that he is not secreting a weapon to use on people unaware or to gain an advantage against otherwise unarmed parties. He or she literally wears his intent of being an armed-but-law-abiding-person on his or her belt, for the public to see and know. The other side of that coin, as noted elsewhere, is that other than for showing off or intimidating others, criminals hide their guns and extract them only for illicit purposes (excluding an oddball case of self-defense, let's say.

But there is also some interesting 'social' precedent for having them concealed. Not so much for keeping the sheeple calm, but if you're in a suit going to a meeting, do you really want to have your 1911 on a drop-leg, or would you rather have a little .380 in your coat pocket, just in case? In the days of pocket pistols they were just another accessory. Just like I grab my wallet and keys as I head out the door, so a person would grab their pocketwatch, billfold, walking cane and pocket pistol and be off for the day.

Point being at least one argument in favor of mandating public possession via CCW only, i.e. the social awareness factor, is highly susceptible to strong counterargument.

Another interesting set of datapoints are 2A-friendly police. Some would prefer we carry concealed, as it lends an element of tactical advantage to the good guy. Others would say that a crook seeing that pistol out in the open is an immediate deterrent.

I'm starting to wonder if/when the DC roster is overturned and the CA roster is gone after and made a piece of unpleasant history, if we'll see attacks on our own safe storage laws. While they're not as draconian as DC's were, there is that issue of immediate availability for defense in the home. Whether the "What about the chiiiiiiiiildren!?!" aspect of those laws would override the 'availability' argument, I'm not sure. I don't think it should, legally.

Christ that was long-winded. Gotta switch to decaf. ;)

Publius
04-23-2009, 9:08 AM
Yes....but if the LESS restrictive fed. law was found unconstitutional, then how can a MORE restrictive state law also not be unconstitutional?

Because the federal government is one of enumerated powers, and does not have a general police power. State governments do have a general police power. The federal law was struck down solely because it did not fall within an enumerated power of Congress, but that's not an issue for a state law.

Publius
04-23-2009, 9:13 AM
Also my .02 cents. I think we should challenge the school free zone first. In all its pure lunacy that they enforce it 24/7. Then again we all know that the law is a stupid one in the first place. It doesn't stop crime near the schools. It was a smoke screen.

I dunno. Nordyke was lost for the Nordykes because of the "sensitive area" issue. Heller and Nordyke both have broad language about such things that have made it easy for courts to point to that broad language, avoid deep analysis, and uphold the law. It would be better, perhaps, to identify a law that is not of a type (e.g. "sensitive area" restrictions) already broadly endorsed as a presumptively-valid restriction. Get the courts to focus more on nailing down the standard of review for laws that restrict the right to bear arms (which ought to be strict scrutiny or something close to it, under the logic of Nordyke), and then use that standard of review to narrow the scope of the types of restrictions Heller and Nordyke tacitly accepted.

Untamed1972
04-23-2009, 9:16 AM
Because the federal government is one of enumerated powers, and does not have a general police power. State governments do have a general police power. The federal law was struck down solely because it did not fall within an enumerated power of Congress, but that's not an issue for a state law.

Gotcha! :thumbsup:

7x57
04-23-2009, 9:21 AM
That's brilliant. I (almost entirely) agree.


I'm glad it made sense, though I think we've drawn opposite conclusions from it.


But, as noted elsewhere, HELLER doesn't protect CCW as much as it protects LOC.


That unfortunately seems to be the case.


That initial 'push' won't come from any number of people hiding the fact that they carry. It will come (IMHO) from those willing (like me & others here) to carry openly. Willing to SHOW The People that there's a new game in town.


I am not at all clear that this is the effect on the general public, but let that pass for now. It also isn't clear that the consequences of the greater protection for OC is what you think. (The following argument is based on one of Gene's that I found persuasive, but he shouldn't be blamed for what I made of it or how I argue it.)

The problem is that if we get OC as a protected right we may never get CC at all--the legislature can say "you have OC, you don't need CC" and the courts may agree they have no 2A obligation to allow CC. Then the problem is that OC is just asking for harassment--and while that harassment may eventually be dealt with legally, it may be our children or grandchildren who finally benefit. People use the analogy of segregation--the basis for an effective set of segregation laws is that no one can hide that they are black.

The other problem is that OC probably does not extend the franchise--I'd guess almost no one will OC but people who are already gunnies and vote for gun rights. This is the problem with OC as "education": gunnies who will OC are willing to defy social pressure, and frankly I think they are blind to the power social pressure has on most people.

Contrast that with getting CCW first. It's proven to extend the franchise, and the reason I think is precisely that it avoids the social stigma. While we may prefer that there be no social stigma, frankly new gunnies aren't going to become society-defying activists right away, and a substantial number never will. But if they are given a stake in self-defense via CCW, castle doctrine, and the rest, in the privacy of the voting booth they will defend their own safety. We absolutely need all these people even though they may never be passionate gunnies.

Worse, for quite some time OC simply won't be as useful defensively--the legislature will certainly find a new passion for landowner's rights and permit businesses to forbid OC on their property--you may not actually be able to carry anywhere you want to go. We won't be able to challenge that on 2A grounds, either, and if we can it will probably be at the cost of some property rights we should not be further attacking. OC without CC will allow a lot of obstacles that are *Constitutional* because they are based on someone *else's* rights.

So we have much more power after getting CCW. But we get more; precisely because of the lesser Constitutional protection, we can still get OC afterwards, especially when we go to court and point out that long arms are Constitutionally protected arms and can't be concealed--therefore, OC is not only protected but the only option to "bear." I don't think they'll be able to take CC away after being forced to accept OC either, precisely because too many people will have a stake in keeping their ability to carry without social stigma.

For all those reasons, I think CC before OC is a much better strategy, assuming it can be done. And I think it can--Equal Protection, for example, should eventually give the legislature of either taking CC away from everybody including off-duty police officers, politicians, and movie stars, or giving it to everyone. Gene doesn't think they will do away with it completely because too many influential people like their carry gun, and I defer to his judgment on that.

More importantly, for the above reasons or his own, Gene thinks it's doable, which is a lot more significant than my thinking so.

That's why I'm not crazy about a lot of OC happening--not because I don't think we should be able to, but because I think it's not the right strategy. I will be extremely unhappy if OC turns out to kill the CC option, and more importantly our political strength will be much, much lower if that happens because we won't have extended the franchise.

BTW, do you want your NFA weapons? That's all about extending the franchise. We don't want anything to screw up our leverage there.

7x57

KWA-S
04-23-2009, 10:15 AM
I doubt the UC ban is considered low hanging fruit. Too much THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Roster
CCW/LOC
AWB
+10 mags

in that order, seem to me to be a good base, then we can do 626.9.

I wonder if CGN will push for challenging knife laws.

yellowfin
04-23-2009, 10:54 AM
Worse, for quite some time OC simply won't be as useful defensively--the legislature will certainly find a new passion for landowner's rights and permit businesses to forbid OC on their property--you may not actually be able to carry anywhere you want to go. .

Heller gives us means of challenging that by the functional and useful test. Restrictions on carry are like the disassembled and locked in the home requirement--sure you have the right on paper, but in practice it doesn't do you any good. A right that's useless because it can't be exercised with any meaning is no right at all.

demnogis
04-23-2009, 11:40 AM
The problem is that if we get OC as a protected right we may never get CC at all--the legislature can say "you have OC, you don't need CC" and the courts may agree they have no 2A obligation to allow CC. Then the problem is that OC is just asking for harassment--and while that harassment may eventually be dealt with legally, it may be our children or grandchildren who finally benefit. People use the analogy of segregation--the basis for an effective set of segregation laws is that no one can hide that they are black.
7x57, I can see where your logic is going, as I wouldn't put it past the legislature to try and eliminate an option to exercising a right. Currently we already have CC as an option (by permitted privilege). I highly doubt this option would go away. It would be easier for legislators to eliminate OC as an option and force us all to use the "may" issue CCW system as that is a permissible exercise of our right to carry. Expanding GFSZs (as recent legislature is) is to discourage OC since possession of firearms (for any purpose) is prohibited within SZs. It is a direct attack on the only other viable option to carry, since many of us in urban areas are not able to obtain CCWs through our "may-issue" PDs and Sheriffs. I fear CA becoming worse than TX in that regard, where they have CC and OC is repeatedly shot down.

The other problem is that OC probably does not extend the franchise--I'd guess almost no one will OC but people who are already gunnies and vote for gun rights. This is the problem with OC as "education": gunnies who will OC are willing to defy social pressure, and frankly I think they are blind to the power social pressure has on most people.
I respectfully disagree. A non-seen, invisible presence of a firearm has less impact in informing other individuals about carrying than an open, outwardly visible presence of a firearm, possessed by law abiding citizens such as ourselves. Those of us who OC can attest to the interactions we've had to help educate others to their rights (and options) to carry.

Contrast that with getting CCW first. It's proven to extend the franchise, and the reason I think is precisely that it avoids the social stigma. While we may prefer that there be no social stigma, frankly new gunnies aren't going to become society-defying activists right away, and a substantial number never will. But if they are given a stake in self-defense via CCW, castle doctrine, and the rest, in the privacy of the voting booth they will defend their own safety. We absolutely need all these people even though they may never be passionate gunnies. IMHO CCW and OC (LOC) should be pushed equally. They are equal in importance. They are the [options to] exercise our right, and thus should have the same level of urgency. OC is just as important as CC to help convince others, since it is only through increased exposure will the hoplophobia around possession dissipate.

Worse, for quite some time OC simply won't be as useful defensively--the legislature will certainly find a new passion for landowner's rights and permit businesses to forbid OC on their property--you may not actually be able to carry anywhere you want to go. We won't be able to challenge that on 2A grounds, either, and if we can it will probably be at the cost of some property rights we should not be further attacking. OC without CC will allow a lot of obstacles that are *Constitutional* because they are based on someone *else's* rights. Already land-owners' rights trump individual rights. Land Owners can already bar you from their property for any reason they see fit. Keep in mind there are many places that have no-firearms policies. This means concealed AND open carry. Ask security at any theater part of Regal Cinemas what their policy is :) If they see it they will ask you to leave, or call the cops. Restrictions on method of carry in public are a major issue, however. What if the expanding school gun legislature henceforth effected CCW so you can only carry within that zone by written permission of the school's superintendent? Whole cities would become "sensitive areas" due to the sprawl of school zones.

So we have much more power after getting CCW. But we get more; precisely because of the lesser Constitutional protection, we can still get OC afterwards, especially when we go to court and point out that long arms are Constitutionally protected arms and can't be concealed--therefore, OC is not only protected but the only option to "bear." I don't think they'll be able to take CC away after being forced to accept OC either, precisely because too many people will have a stake in keeping their ability to carry without social stigma.

For all those reasons, I think CC before OC is a much better strategy, assuming it can be done. And I think it can--Equal Protection, for example, should eventually give the legislature of either taking CC away from everybody including off-duty police officers, politicians, and movie stars, or giving it to everyone. Gene doesn't think they will do away with it completely because too many influential people like their carry gun, and I defer to his judgment on that. Through this logic then, CC will stay secured. We should then move on to giving OC the same level of protection.

That's why I'm not crazy about a lot of OC happening--not because I don't think we should be able to, but because I think it's not the right strategy. I will be extremely unhappy if OC turns out to kill the CC option, and more importantly our political strength will be much, much lower if that happens because we won't have extended the franchise. Contrary to how you feel, there are still many, many people who will fight to keep CC, as it is their paid-for privilege. As mentioned, there are movie stars, politicians and such who enjoy this privilege. OC poses no threat to CC in this regard - they have bought too far into the system to let it happen. Look at the overwhelming response to OC Sheriff Sandra Hutchins and her CCW permit grab policy... The people in power do not want it taken away.

xxdabroxx
04-23-2009, 3:59 PM
Not being a lawyer, or even a 'para-lawyer' like some of the folks on this board, I wonder what they might think about challenging the reciprosity of CCWs issued in other states( e.g. Utah, NV, Florida, etc). Prior to incorporation, states had the ability to decide whose CCW they would recognize and whose they would not. Now that the 9th has ruled, would states still have the ability to not recognize another state's CCW? This may well be the way to force CA into shall issue if the state would have to recognize another states permit. Post your thoughts.... :43:

Can other states not acknowledge your california drivers license, could we use something along the lines of this to our benefit?

7x57
04-23-2009, 4:10 PM
Heller gives us means of challenging that by the functional and useful test. Restrictions on carry are like the disassembled and locked in the home requirement--sure you have the right on paper, but in practice it doesn't do you any good. A right that's useless because it can't be exercised with any meaning is no right at all.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about state restrictions--I'm talking about businesses with "no guns" signs. Technically, you have the right to OC--but you can't go about your business armed never the less. The 2A does not restrict individuals exercising their property rights.

7x57

7x57
04-23-2009, 4:39 PM
Currently we already have CC as an option (by permitted privilege). I highly doubt this option would go away.


Most of what you wrote is predicated on this, and to that extent is true but irrelevant to my argument. The "may-issue" system means that no ordinary citizen in SF, LA, and so on will *ever* be able to CC. You count that as having CC, but I don't. If it is not "shall-issue" it is irrelevant. I live in LA county--the current system is as irrelevant to me as the gun laws in Borneo. So for the purposes of self-defense I ignore anything less than "shall-issue."

So having said that, let me re-state to be more clear: if we force the state to respect OC rights, we may never be able to force "shall-issue" CC. On the other hand, if we force "shall-issue" CC we can probably *also* force legal LOC without losing shall-issue CC. If I understood Gene, in the absence of legal LOC we may be able to sue for shall-issue CC as an *equal protection* issue, *then* sue for OC as a 2A issue. But if we get legal recognition of our 2A right to OC, then we probably can no longer sue for CC under equal protection because the courts will say that everyone can carry openly, so CC is simply a privilege at the legislature's discretion.


It would be easier for legislators to eliminate OC as an option and force us all to use the "may" issue CCW system as that is a permissible exercise of our right to carry.


No. The current system is a privilege at the discretion of the legislature, and is irrelevant to our right to carry. Even in, say, Kern county, it has nothing legally to do with the right-to-carry: Kern is de facto "shall-issue" simply because the sheriff wishes it to be so. He wishes to extend the privilege to many people. He may even believe you have a moral right to carry, but legally you have none (yet).

You have no legal *right* to carry unless you can go to court and sue the state for infringing it. Nordyke is going to give us that, as it explicitly said the precedent that you can't sue is dead, but it may only give us the right to sue for OC.


I fear CA becoming worse than TX in that regard, where they have CC and OC is repeatedly shot down.


That isn't going to happen. If I have a right to carry a long gun, then I have the right to OC. Further, historically it's clear that OC was protected but unclear that CC was. The reverse is the realistic fear.


I respectfully disagree. A non-seen, invisible presence of a firearm has less impact in informing other individuals about carrying than an open, outwardly visible presence of a firearm, possessed by law abiding citizens such as ourselves. Those of us who OC can attest to the interactions we've had to help educate others to their rights (and options) to carry.


I despair to have logical conversations with the OC crowd because of arguments like this. I've tried to say this many times. Your sample data is as biased as data can be--it only covers those willing to interact with you. We have no way of measuring your effect on those who choose not to interact with you, and further we know very well that people who are negatively affected will be much more inclined to avoid you entirely. So your data does not allow us to estimate the effect, but we can be sure that the effect is more negative than you would judge. What we can't accurately estimate is how much more negative.

Further, when the media covers it the vast majority of people you affect see you through the media's lens, so we can be sure the effect is far more negative than what you can see from personal interaction.

OC is pretty much only useful when we're ready to use the courts to force respect for our rights. That shouldn't happen before we get shall-issue.


IMHO CCW and OC (LOC) should be pushed equally.


You may think so, but the Right People do not. To be blunt, why do you think you know more than our lawyers and lobbyists?


They are equal in importance.


This is a false criterion. We don't tackle laws in order of importance but rather with an eye to the overall result. It seems that the first issue is likely to be the roster. The roster is a *lot* less important than CC, OC, or the AW ban, but it appears to be the best strategically.

Remember why we invaded North Africa first? It wasn't because it was the most important target.


They are the [options to] exercise our right, and thus should have the same level of urgency. OC is just as important as CC to help convince others, since it is only through increased exposure will the hoplophobia around possession dissipate.


I am aware that OC is an obsession beyond all reason for some people, that is as far as I'll go.


Already land-owners' rights trump individual rights. Land Owners can already bar you from their property for any reason they see fit. Keep in mind there are many places that have no-firearms policies. This means concealed AND open carry.


But that does not mean they are affected equally, as the experience in other states proves. In some it's a crime, or grounds for loss of your CCW to carry on property posted "no guns." In others, nothing happens as long as you leave when requested to.

Now, the latter case is *very* different for CC and OC. It effectively bans OC, because you will be asked to leave immediately. But it really doesn't affect CC at all, unless you're stupid, because if you really are carrying *concealed* then they don't know you're carrying. This means that the only really useful carry under these laws is CC, even though theoretically you have the right to "OC."


Ask security at any theater part of Regal Cinemas what their policy is :)


Under the law that says you simply must leave when requested, only stupid people ask. :-)


Through this logic then, CC will stay secured.


But the logic seems to be wrong.


Contrary to how you feel, there are still many, many people who will fight to keep CC, as it is their paid-for privilege.


So what? Who cares? I care nothing whatsoever for their privileges. If it isn't shall-issue, then it's nothing. That's the problem with your argument--what you count as "keeping CC" is worthless to normal people. And likewise to me and you specifically.


Look at the overwhelming response to OC Sheriff Sandra Hutchins and her CCW permit grab policy... The people in power do not want it taken away.

Nonsense. It isn't clear she will be removed, and if she is it will be because she's extraordinarily stupid. If she'd simply refused to *renew* or to issue new CCW permits, it wouldn't have gone anywhere. Under current law she has absolute discretion to renew or not, to issue or not, on pure whim. CC is a privilege, and the privilege is granted at her sole discretion. If she goes down it will be because she used gestapo-like tactics at a board meeting and generally chose the worst possible strategy. A competent sheriff would be untouchable.

7x57

Mulay El Raisuli
04-24-2009, 8:13 AM
That unfortunately seems to be the case.


And this (HELLER supporting LOC instead of CCW) is where the argument falls. We started our WWII ETO invasions in North Africa because we could. We had the tools to push there & did not have the tools to invade France. IE, we went where we could go & deferred going where we couldn't. Similarly, we don't have the tools to push for CCW right now. Neither HELLER nor NORDYKE gives us those tools. They do give us tools to LOC.



The problem is that if we get OC as a protected right we may never get CC at all--the legislature can say "you have OC, you don't need CC" and the courts may agree they have no 2A obligation to allow CC. Then the problem is that OC is just asking for harassment--and while that harassment may eventually be dealt with legally, it may be our children or grandchildren who finally benefit. People use the analogy of segregation--the basis for an effective set of segregation laws is that no one can hide that they are black.



Honestly, I just don't see that as realistic. This is a political question. Politics means numbers. As you noted in another thread a while ago, support from The People for having the means of self defense is stronger than you thought. Even in the PRK. I don't see as realistic CCW going away in its entirety. ESPECIALLY since far too many Big Shots want it.



The other problem is that OC probably does not extend the franchise--I'd guess almost no one will OC but people who are already gunnies and vote for gun rights. This is the problem with OC as "education": gunnies who will OC are willing to defy social pressure, and frankly I think they are blind to the power social pressure has on most people.



I disagree. For the reason that far too many people prefer staying alive to looking good.



Contrast that with getting CCW first. It's proven to extend the franchise, and the reason I think is precisely that it avoids the social stigma. While we may prefer that there be no social stigma, frankly new gunnies aren't going to become society-defying activists right away, and a substantial number never will. But if they are given a stake in self-defense via CCW, castle doctrine, and the rest, in the privacy of the voting booth they will defend their own safety. We absolutely need all these people even though they may never be passionate gunnies.



I'm not pushing LOC as a way of gaining passionate gunnies. I'm pushing LOC as a way of getting people to realize that a new day has dawned. I don't believe they'll start thinking that until they see that.



Worse, for quite some time OC simply won't be as useful defensively--the legislature will certainly find a new passion for landowner's rights and permit businesses to forbid OC on their property--you may not actually be able to carry anywhere you want to go. We won't be able to challenge that on 2A grounds, either, and if we can it will probably be at the cost of some property rights we should not be further attacking. OC without CC will allow a lot of obstacles that are *Constitutional* because they are based on someone *else's* rights.



Again, defense isn't the primary reason. Education is the primary reason. But, while I won't be able to LOC everywhere I'd like to, I will be able to LOC more often than I can now. Which means I'll be safer than I am now. This also applies to a LOT of other people (more on this later).



So we have much more power after getting CCW. But we get more; precisely because of the lesser Constitutional protection, we can still get OC afterwards, especially when we go to court and point out that long arms are Constitutionally protected arms and can't be concealed--therefore, OC is not only protected but the only option to "bear." I don't think they'll be able to take CC away after being forced to accept OC either, precisely because too many people will have a stake in keeping their ability to carry without social stigma.




Switching to poker, if I'm dealt a full house, should I drop a card in the hopes of getting four-of-a-kind? Given that I don't see CCW going away, dropping a winning hand in favor of big time uncertainty isn't a rational way to play.



For all those reasons, I think CC before OC is a much better strategy, assuming it can be done. And I think it can--Equal Protection, for example, should eventually give the legislature of either taking CC away from everybody including off-duty police officers, politicians, and movie stars, or giving it to everyone. Gene doesn't think they will do away with it completely because too many influential people like their carry gun, and I defer to his judgment on that.



And I agree with Gene that CCW going away entirely is unlikely. Which is why I think that putting CCW ahead of LOC equals dropping a winning hand for uncertainty. And the uncertainty is there, as even you state "assuming it (your way) can be done."



More importantly, for the above reasons or his own, Gene thinks it's doable, which is a lot more significant than my thinking so.



Since he hasn't shared his logic with the rest of us (and won't) its hard for me to say whether his logic is sound or not. He does seem to think that we should all just STFU & follow along. I'm sorry, but I won't be a sheeple for anyone else, why should I want to be a sheeple for him? Further, it may indeed be doable. But what saves lives the soonest? What gets us political support the soonest?



BTW, do you want your NFA weapons? That's all about extending the franchise. We don't want anything to screw up our leverage there.



7x57



Actually, my personal preferences have nothing to do with NFAs. I fully support the Right for We The People to have them, but I don't feel the need for any of them. Also, this is about what should come first. And whether I can have/carry full auto isn't as important as my ability to have something in my hands when the need arises. The same goes for the safe list. Okay, I can't carry <fill in the blank> right now. I'm perfectly happy with carrying my Taurus for now. That satisfies the First Rule of a gunfight. And it does so now. Or, as soon as some real effort is put into it.

Further, I'm not sure that pushing for NFAs really works to extend the franchise right now. Again, in politics, numbers matter. Getting support for a widow to have protection while walking through a crack-infested neighborhood is quite a bit different than getting support for a bunch of young healthy men to have NFAs. Its a numbers game. There's just a whole more people (not just widows) who want to have protection than want to have NFAs. And a lot more people willing to push for that than to push for NFAs. Why don't we get these people (whom our masters pay attention to) on our side? More guns (in the right hands) means safer streets. We know this to be true. My idea is that we share this knowledge with as many people as we can as soon as we can. As the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, the proof about armed self defense will be in the doing. So, my push is that we take the winning hand we have right now, play the game & get even more people on our side. Now.

The Raisuli

Frohickey
04-24-2009, 8:40 AM
Are the Nordykes going to appeal this case to the SCOTUS?
How do I make a contribution to the cause?

press1280
04-24-2009, 10:51 AM
I believe CCW is bolstered by Heller and Nordyke for these reasons:
Strict scrutiny equal protection under San Antonio v. Rodriguez, now that the 2A is regarded as a fundamental right in CA. Now instead of someone having to prove that the CCW statute is completely irrational(which is almost impossible to do), the state has to prove why it can issue to retired LEOs, but not to anyone else.The burden is on them, not on us. Before, the states rationale would be X number of people were killed with handguns, so only select people can carry, and that would be "reasonable" even if the statistics pointed the other way.
As far as protecting LOC only, that would be possible except for the fact CA has pretty much outlawed it in most places. So now they're forced with a choice: they'll have to allow for LOC statewide(probably not) or shall-issue(more likely).
If this were Wisconsin, where OC is legal statewide but CC isn't allowed at all, I'd be in agreement. The state is allowed to "regulate" the carrying of weapons, so while they could conceivably allow OC and ban CC(or may-issue it), they could also opt for the opposite, ban OC and allow shall-issue CC like FL and TX do.