PDA

View Full Version : If OC is decided as the only legal method of carry


CavTrooper
01-05-2010, 6:12 PM
how would one carry while wearing a suit?

How about if its raining and one needs to wear a slicker?

Seems like theres some logistical issues we need solved before we decide between CCW or OC.

AJAX22
01-05-2010, 6:19 PM
Shotguns, rifles, and drop leg holsters...

or perhapse you can just wear a sticker that says I HAVE A GUN

same difference.

Sionadi
01-05-2010, 6:24 PM
Do a cowboy tuck. Just tuck the part of clothing behind the holster.

Merle
01-05-2010, 7:11 PM
Yup. OC is not 100% practical. Inclement weather is the #1 reason for me.

Same thing with CCW, it's not 100% practical. In states like TX, a brief exposure or 'printing' can get you in trouble.

Ideally, we get both and are able to choose the right tool and method for the job.

GrizzlyGuy
01-05-2010, 7:20 PM
Seems like theres some logistical issues we need solved before we decide between CCW or OC.

Sorry Cav, but I need to challenge your premise. WE won't get to decide between CCW or OC. The CA legislature will decide for us. After McDonald, they'll need to let us all do one or the other. They could choose both, but this is CA, not a free state like NV, AZ, NH, etc.

No worries, your handgun won't get wet. They'll choose CCW as that reduces the citizen fear factor and prevents police resources from being consumed in investigating all the man-with-a-gun calls from fearful citizens. See any of the current OC threads for background. Our legislators will probably even point to TX as a "model" for their "common-sense" decision (while leaving out all the other cool things that Texans need to do).

Then again, I could be all wet, and your openly carried gun might get wet. Crystal balls and tea leaves aren't my specialty. :D

VegasND
01-05-2010, 7:23 PM
...Ideally, we get both and are able to choose the right tool and method for the job.

+1 !
I've open carried and concealed in different states. The states where 'printing' and 'exposure' are forbidden always worry me.

Here in Nevada, if somebody sees my CCW, oh well; that's just one less thing for me to worry about.

Meplat
01-05-2010, 8:15 PM
OC will not be the standard. At least not very long.


how would one carry while wearing a suit?

How about if its raining and one needs to wear a slicker?

Seems like theres some logistical issues we need solved before we decide between CCW or OC.

yelohamr
01-05-2010, 8:34 PM
Yup. OC is not 100% practical. Inclement weather is the #1 reason for me.

In Viet Nam all of us Marines didn't go outside during monsoon season. We didn't want to get our M-14s wet.:rolleyes:

Grakken
01-06-2010, 8:24 AM
Personally CCW is the way to go..Inclement weather is one thing (I mean, if you keep up good maint on your weapons, a day of rain shouldn't mean anything.) However, I would want CCW because think about it. You are at place X and you are OC'ing...Bad guy/s inside casing the Place A or whatever. They see you in a crowd of 10 other people, you are the only one with a weapon (visible at least). Guess who gets hit first?

Too many nanny types who would discriminate against you too if you were to walk around with a gun on your hip. It's sad but true. Might fly in Texas, but not in the heart of the liberals bastion. JMHO.

Asmodai
01-06-2010, 8:42 AM
how would one carry while wearing a suit?

How about if its raining and one needs to wear a slicker?



Sounds like an opportunity, not a problem - Start designing holsters now!:D

pullnshoot25
01-06-2010, 10:55 AM
I am for both. I will always be an OC advocate but I do see the practicality of having a hidden snubby or Makarov and I plan to carry both ways, even simultaneously.

Decoligny
01-06-2010, 12:34 PM
Personally CCW is the way to go..Inclement weather is one thing (I mean, if you keep up good maint on your weapons, a day of rain shouldn't mean anything.) However, I would want CCW because think about it. You are at place X and you are OC'ing...Bad guy/s inside casing the Place A or whatever. They see you in a crowd of 10 other people, you are the only one with a weapon (visible at least). Guess who gets hit first?
Too many nanny types who would discriminate against you too if you were to walk around with a gun on your hip. It's sad but true. Might fly in Texas, but not in the heart of the liberals bastion. JMHO.

That's easy, the store down the street that doesn't have an armed customer in it.

If a BG is casing the place, then he is looking to make sure that it is safe for him to enter and rob the place. He doesn't look into a store, see a cop in uniform and then decide, "I am going to go in, shoot the cop, and then rob the place". He also doesn't look into the store, see a man with a gun on his hip and then decide, "I am going to go in, shoot the guy with a gun, and then rob the place".

What he does it this, he looks in, see the guy with the gun, decides that the couple hundred he can get out of the cash register isn't worth dieing for, and moves on to a softer target, like the store down the street that doesn't have a guy with a gun shopping in it.

Liberty1
01-06-2010, 12:42 PM
Personally CCW is the way to go...

You are certainly welcome to your opinion but please consider this argument too...

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html

bigcalidave
01-06-2010, 12:47 PM
We already have CCW here, in case many forgot. They won't be taking away the entire CCW provisions and replacing them with OC cowboy style after incorporation. It's not even in a logical progression of things. Not a logistical issue at all.

wildhawker
01-06-2010, 12:56 PM
I am for both. I will always be an OC advocate but I do see the practicality of having a hidden snubby or Makarov and I plan to carry both ways, even simultaneously.

That's a solution I can get on board with. :thumbsup:

grammaton76
01-06-2010, 1:30 PM
Try to get it in writing from the CA AG that hip carried under a clear raincoat (like what folks frequently wear at Disneyland) is not concealed. That's your foul-weather open carry solution. :)

cineski
01-06-2010, 1:32 PM
CCW should be a right, as you have the right to defend yourself, and sheeple have the right to not see a gun on your hip and become freaked out.

bigstick61
01-06-2010, 1:39 PM
One thing to consider during bad weather is a short waterproof jacket and the use of a flap holster. Either that, or wearing the holster on a belt worn on the outside of your jacket. Personally, I think we should be able to do both. I prefer open carry for the majority of situations, but there are situations where it is impractical or inappropriate to carry openly, and you are left with little option there if you cannot get a CCW permit.

Decoligny
01-06-2010, 1:58 PM
I have a waterproof trenchcoat that has pockets designed so that you can assess your suitcoat pocket (opening on the inside and outside). With no modification I could simply put the gun and holster through the inside pocket opening and then through the outside pocket opening, and I would have an OCed gun outside of a weatherproof jacket.

Hunt
01-06-2010, 2:03 PM
OC will not be the standard. At least not very long.

there will be thousands of hoplophobic vegetarians protesting at the approval of OC.

Right now I am more concerned how the antis are trying to turn this into an international security issue and the incremental loss of our soveriegnty. They know they can't get past Heller but the international security and environmental stage are open for new scripts.

6172crew
01-06-2010, 2:07 PM
+1 !
I've open carried and concealed in different states. The states where 'printing' and 'exposure' are forbidden always worry me.

Here in Nevada, if somebody sees my CCW, oh well; that's just one less thing for me to worry about.

Its been a year since getting my NV ccw but that doesnt sound right at all to me.:cool:

Kharn
01-06-2010, 2:11 PM
If OC is the only way to go, I'll strap on a 1911 and smile whenever I'm asked why I'm cocked & locked. I'd rather carry a full-frame gun openly than constantly worry about concealing a J-frame. Carry in a suit is why they make BBQ rigs, belt it on overtop of the coat. And if you're worried about rain damaging your carry gun you need to put that one back in the safe and pick a better finish.

Meplat
01-06-2010, 5:35 PM
I always thought if I ever attend a UOC event I would carry a nice big hogleg with ammo in belt loops for show, and also my CCW gun in the unlikely event I have to do any social work. :43:

I am for both. I will always be an OC advocate but I do see the practicality of having a hidden snubby or Makarov and I plan to carry both ways, even simultaneously.

SikDMAX
01-06-2010, 5:56 PM
Question.... Holsters like Walther P38 and Luger that are leather with a flap that completely covers the weapon. Worn on belt, holster completely visible.

Illegal?

grammaton76
01-06-2010, 6:01 PM
Questionable. I personally wouldn't do it, simply because an LEO can make a judgment call on it and say he wants to nail you for it. At the very least you'll get a lot of inconvenience over it.

bohoki
01-06-2010, 7:45 PM
Sounds like an opportunity, not a problem - Start designing holsters now!:D

when its raining and you have to wear a slicker you switch to a long arm they are technically unconcealable

and locked cased the pistol

Seesm
01-06-2010, 9:05 PM
I think CCW is best... have the bad guy "wonder" maybe I should get a new line of work...? :)

pullnshoot25
01-06-2010, 9:49 PM
Questionable. I personally wouldn't do it, simply because an LEO can make a judgment call on it and say he wants to nail you for it. At the very least you'll get a lot of inconvenience over it.

Yeah, judgement. About that...

GoodEyeSniper
01-06-2010, 9:56 PM
In Viet Nam all of us Marines didn't go outside during monsoon season. We didn't want to get our M-14s wet.:rolleyes:

I don't think his point was that his gun would get wet. His point was that, in most places that allow OC, you would be committing a felony if a piece of your clothing covered it, making it "concealed". So, if you are out and about in freezing temperatures, you have to make sure your holster is on the outside of about 8 layers of clothing, and no long coat for you, because that will cover it too, etc...

nicki
01-07-2010, 2:41 AM
I think we will probably get the right to open carry. A right means no permit required, something anyone can do, like speech.

If you can legally own a gun, you can carry it.

Now concealed carry is something that will be licensed, maybe.

From a twisted Ca perspective, if concealed carry was allowed without a permit, many more people would carry versus if the only way to carry without a permit was to OPEN carry.

By allowing OPEN carry, a state can license or ban concealed carry.

One has to look at what happened a few years back. Ohio Supreme court ruled that people had a right to bear arms and since they could do so openly, that the concealed ban was constitutional.

When large open loaded carry marches happened across the state and people started carrying guns openly and the public knew that this was happening because the Governor wouldn't sign a CCW bill, things changed.

Today Ohio has CCW, people can still open carry without a license, but few do.

Nicki

Mulay El Raisuli
01-07-2010, 5:46 AM
I think we will probably get the right to open carry. A right means no permit required, something anyone can do, like speech.

If you can legally own a gun, you can carry it.

Now concealed carry is something that will be licensed, maybe.

From a twisted Ca perspective, if concealed carry was allowed without a permit, many more people would carry versus if the only way to carry without a permit was to OPEN carry.

By allowing OPEN carry, a state can license or ban concealed carry.

One has to look at what happened a few years back. Ohio Supreme court ruled that people had a right to bear arms and since they could do so openly, that the concealed ban was constitutional.

When large open loaded carry marches happened across the state and people started carrying guns openly and the public knew that this was happening because the Governor wouldn't sign a CCW bill, things changed.

Today Ohio has CCW, people can still open carry without a license, but few do.

Nicki


And that's the way it will go here. Because while CCW can be banned, there's zero chance that it will be banned.


The Raisuli

Maestro Pistolero
01-07-2010, 7:32 AM
I think we will probably get the right to open carry. A right means no permit required, something anyone can do, like speech.

If you can legally own a gun, you can carry it.

Now concealed carry is something that will be licensed, maybe.

From a twisted Ca perspective, if concealed carry was allowed without a permit, many more people would carry versus if the only way to carry without a permit was to OPEN carry.

By allowing OPEN carry, a state can license or ban concealed carry.

One has to look at what happened a few years back. Ohio Supreme court ruled that people had a right to bear arms and since they could do so openly, that the concealed ban was constitutional.

When large open loaded carry marches happened across the state and people started carrying guns openly and the public knew that this was happening because the Governor wouldn't sign a CCW bill, things changed.

Today Ohio has CCW, people can still open carry without a license, but few do.

Nicki
This. I am not sure if the right to carry is codified, that you can be required to conceal. It's a little like a right to free speech, but don't let anyone hear you, or you can be arrested. I prefer concealed, having done it for over twenty years. But living in Nevada, I appreciate being able to step out of my car when it's 110 degrees, and use the ATM without putting a jacket on.

WeekendWarrior
01-07-2010, 8:30 AM
Question.... Holsters like Walther P38 and Luger that are leather with a flap that completely covers the weapon. Worn on belt, holster completely visible.

Illegal?

Cut a small window in the side of the holster large enough to see the gun inside the holster?

pullnshoot25
01-07-2010, 9:58 AM
Cut a small window in the side of the holster large enough to see the gun inside the holster?

Partial concealment is still concealment.

Liberty1
01-07-2010, 10:26 AM
And that's the way it will go here.

The Raisuli

There is no guarantee that will be so. We may very well end up like Texas/Florida and I don't like that prospect. The court gets to make that determination and I wish RKBA protections were being decided in 1789 or 1873 but we are going to get the 2010 version unfortunately IMO (hope I'm wrong).

navyinrwanda
01-07-2010, 11:54 AM
A right means no permit required, something anyone can do, like speech.

If you can legally own a gun, you can carry it.
I'm not aware of any litigation currently underway asking for this.

As has been discussed many times, the right to carry (open or concealed) will likely be regulated via a limited discretion permit, similar to how parade and other public gathering permits currently regulate speech and assembly rights.

Merle
01-07-2010, 12:36 PM
As has been discussed many times, the right to carry (open or concealed) will likely be regulated via a limited discretion permit, similar to how parade and other public gathering permits currently regulate speech and assembly rights.

Doesn't the bill of rights primarily address individual rights, with permits for parades, public gatherings to only deal with groups?

If you choose to walk down the street, you don't need a permit. If you choose to walk down the same street with 500 of your closest friends, you need one due to the infringement (blocking traffic) upon other peoples rights.

The same should apply to the 2A. As an individual right, it shouldn't be regulated. However, walking down the street with 500 of your closest friends could be regulated (protest, union strike, etc. banning/restricting firearms).

bulgron
01-07-2010, 12:44 PM
I prefer CCW. Living in the county that I do, I'm pretty sure that if I was OCing, many businesses would ask me to leave the premises. But if I'm CCWing, they won't see the gun, hence nothing to get all worked up over.

That said, the courts need to recognize that accidental exposure is not something that people ought to be jailed for, or lose their carry permits over.

bulgron
01-07-2010, 12:45 PM
I'm not aware of any litigation currently underway asking for this.

Give it time.

It might not even come from California if Texas doesn't get around to legalizing LOC.

KylaGWolf
01-07-2010, 1:10 PM
Personally CCW is the way to go..Inclement weather is one thing (I mean, if you keep up good maint on your weapons, a day of rain shouldn't mean anything.) However, I would want CCW because think about it. You are at place X and you are OC'ing...Bad guy/s inside casing the Place A or whatever. They see you in a crowd of 10 other people, you are the only one with a weapon (visible at least). Guess who gets hit first?

Too many nanny types who would discriminate against you too if you were to walk around with a gun on your hip. It's sad but true. Might fly in Texas, but not in the heart of the liberals bastion. JMHO.

State your source that the open carrier would be the first target. More than likely they would keep the bad guy from hitting there in the first place. And I have open carried in this state granted unloaded and never once have I seen anyone go run and scream in seeing me with a gun on my hip. I have only heard one negative comment in that time and even that person changed their opinion by the end of our conversation. I have never been discriminated against in any of the businesses I have been in when I was UOCing either.

KylaGWolf
01-07-2010, 1:13 PM
I am for both. I will always be an OC advocate but I do see the practicality of having a hidden snubby or Makarov and I plan to carry both ways, even simultaneously.

Exactly!

navyinrwanda
01-07-2010, 2:02 PM
Doesn't the bill of rights primarily address individual rights, with permits for parades, public gatherings to only deal with groups?

If you choose to walk down the street, you don't need a permit. If you choose to walk down the same street with 500 of your closest friends, you need one due to the infringement (blocking traffic) upon other peoples rights.

The same should apply to the 2A. As an individual right, it shouldn't be regulated. However, walking down the street with 500 of your closest friends could be regulated (protest, union strike, etc. banning/restricting firearms).
The legal term of art that refers to constitutionally acceptable restrictions on speech is "time, place and manner (http://www.answers.com/topic/time-place-and-manner-restrictions)." Time, place, and manner (TPM) restrictions accommodate public convenience and promote order by regulating traffic flow, preserving property interests, conserving the environment, and protecting the administration of justice. Permits are a valid method of effecting these regulations, as long as they meet certain tests.

For example, an individual might be required to obtain a permit before speaking in public if that speech could reasonably be expected to disrupt the peace.

Under an analogous approach, permits will likely be held to be a constitutional method for regulating the carrying of weapons.

nobody_special
01-07-2010, 2:25 PM
Under an analogous approach, permits will likely be held to be a constitutional method for regulating the carrying of weapons.

I've participated in a couple threads where Gene and I debated this issue at length. My concern is this: I can't think of a single other Constitutionally-protected right which is subject to a restriction where you must obtain a permit in order to exercise that right in any way.

Requiring a permit for any exercise of a right to carry goes far beyond a simple time/place/manner restriction.

AJAX22
01-07-2010, 2:38 PM
I am for both. I will always be an OC advocate but I do see the practicality of having a hidden snubby or Makarov and I plan to carry both ways, even simultaneously.

uarBW30FUdU

Totally just flashed back to "for a few dollars more"

navyinrwanda
01-07-2010, 2:40 PM
I've participated in a couple threads where Gene and I debated this issue at length. My concern is this: I can't think of a single other Constitutionally-protected right which is subject to a restriction where you must obtain a permit in order to exercise that right in any way.

Requiring a permit for any exercise of a right to carry goes far beyond a simple time/place/manner restriction.
What about marriage licenses? Or voter registration?

MasterYong
01-07-2010, 3:00 PM
Shotguns, rifles, and drop leg holsters...

or perhapse you can just wear a sticker that says I HAVE A GUN

same difference.

Isn't that called an NRA sticker?

:hide:

nobody_special
01-07-2010, 3:07 PM
What about marriage licenses? Or voter registration?

Neither is mentioned in the bill of rights.

The latter is minimally burdensome, in that (1) it is free, (2) it is trivial to obtain, and (3) it generally does not expire; that seems different from most permits, especially the CA CCW permits which are expensive and require significant effort to obtain even by those rare individuals who are deemed qualified. Voter registration has been severely regulated by the courts in order to ensure that it is not a burden on the right.

Marriage licenses are a different story. Marriage is a right, though again not Constitutionally protected. A few states still recognize unlicensed common-law marriages. And, marriage licensing was historically used to enforce racist laws, and like voter registration the courts have largely put a stop to this. There are a variety of government benefits to being married (taxes, though that's far from the only one), so clearly the government has a substantial interest in record-keeping to avoid fraud.

I don't see much similarity between marriage licensing and a license for any right to carry. One is a (supposedly) once-in-a-lifetime event which has significant ramifications to the government, especially taxes. Bearing arms for defense is an enumerated right which, under ordinary circumstances, has virtually no governmental impact.

navyinrwanda
01-07-2010, 3:38 PM
Neither is mentioned in the bill of rights.

The latter is minimally burdensome, in that (1) it is free, (2) it is trivial to obtain, and (3) it generally does not expire; that seems different from most permits, especially the CA CCW permits which are expensive and require significant effort to obtain even by those rare individuals who are deemed qualified. Voter registration has been severely regulated by the courts in order to ensure that it is not a burden on the right.

Marriage licenses are a different story. Marriage is a right, though again not Constitutionally protected. A few states still recognize unlicensed common-law marriages. And, marriage licensing was historically used to enforce racist laws, and like voter registration the courts have largely put a stop to this. There are a variety of government benefits to being married (taxes, though that's far from the only one), so clearly the government has a substantial interest in record-keeping to avoid fraud.

I don't see much similarity between marriage licensing and a license for any right to carry. One is a (supposedly) once-in-a-lifetime event which has significant ramifications to the government, especially taxes. Bearing arms for defense is an enumerated right which, under ordinary circumstances, has virtually no governmental impact.
True, neither marriage nor voting are enumerated fundamental rights. I was just suggesting a couple of examples where licensing and/or registration are not viewed as burdensome.

Obviously any constitutionally valid permitting system for weapon carry would not be able to pose excessive burdens. So it couldn't be too expensive, it couldn't be discriminatory, and it would have to serve a significant government interest, such as insuring that prohibited persons were not armed. The resulting process would probably not bear much resemblance to the current CCW system in California.

In the end, I suspect that this might be one of the fairly small number of post-incorporation cases that the Supreme Court would take. It's just hard to imagine that, after all the dust settles, the Second Amendment would emerge with fewer restrictions than the First.

Kharn
01-07-2010, 4:06 PM
You can still be required to get a permit for public demonstrations, rallies, parades, etc. Its when you own (or have permission of the land owner) that you can have a demonstration without any permit whatsoever.

Glock22Fan
01-07-2010, 4:16 PM
If a marriage license cost $500 and you had to renew it (at the same cost) every two years, how many of you would get/stay married?

andalusi
01-07-2010, 4:21 PM
Sounds like an opportunity, not a problem - Start designing holsters now!:D

I can't wait to see this hypothetical exciting new line of gun galoshes.

Kid Stanislaus
01-07-2010, 5:06 PM
In Viet Nam all of us Marines didn't go outside during monsoon season. We didn't want to get our M-14s wet.:rolleyes:

And that's the REAL reason we lost the war!!:p

Kid Stanislaus
01-07-2010, 5:12 PM
Right now I am more concerned how the antis are trying to turn this into an international security issue and the incremental loss of our soveriegnty. They know they can't get past Heller but the international security and environmental stage are open for new scripts.

And that fine, upstanding fellow residing at 2400 Pennsyvania Ave, Wash., D.C. is more than willing to help them.

Kid Stanislaus
01-07-2010, 5:21 PM
And that's the way it will go here. Because while CCW can be banned, there's zero chance that it will be banned. The Raisuli

Hold on there just a second Mulay, you've got to remember you are living in the "propeller head" state. Any idiotic law can and will be passed in this intellectual dust bin. Don't be saying the state legislature and the governor will not enact a really stupid law, history tells us otherwise.

cmth
01-07-2010, 6:36 PM
Historically open carry has been recognized as a right, and concealed carry as either a privilege or flat out illegal, even going back to the common law. Open carry was seen as the way that honest men carried their arms, and concealed carry the domain of criminals. If you had ill intent in mind, you would not be displaying your weaponry for all the world to see. That is why there have been laws against concealed carry in most states since their founding.

Permits are exemptions from laws that would criminalize certain activities, such as carrying a concealed weapon. Any activity that ordinarily would be considered criminal and which one must request an exemption permit for and having the possibility of denial or an extrajudicial revocation is, by definition, a privilege. Hence concealed carry can never be considered a right as long as it is, by default, illegal to do so, and one must obtain a permit to lawfully practice it.

Open carry, on the other hand, is still generally recognized as lawful in most states, and a permit is not usually required to do so. You do not have to fear criminal prosecution, nor ask anyone's permission, nor pay a fee or tax to openly carry a loaded firearm. That by definition is a right. Undoubtedly this is also what most common people would tell you when asked what the meaning of "right to bear arms" is as enumerated in our Constitution (not that their opinion is legally binding).

I believe that if the Supreme Court were to ever rule on what form of bearing arms is the Constitutionally-protected method, it would be unlicensed, untaxed, loaded open carry. I doubt very much if they would extend that legal protection to concealed carry given its history in this country. States most likely would still be able to regulate concealed carry much as they do now. But I'm not a legal scholar, just a layman who has done a lot of research, so my opinion on the matter could be completely wrong.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-08-2010, 5:23 AM
There is no guarantee that will be so. We may very well end up like Texas/Florida and I don't like that prospect. The court gets to make that determination and I wish RKBA protections were being decided in 1789 or 1873 but we are going to get the 2010 version unfortunately IMO (hope I'm wrong).


SCOTUS is supposed to use Original Intent when looking at Constitutional Rights. So, they're supposed to use either the 1789 standard when looking at the 2A, & the 1868 standard when looking at the 14A. From my reading of Heller, that's exactly what they (well, the Good Five at the very least) will do. That means LOC is the Right. One that doesn't & won't require any sort of permit.

Add to this the wording used in Heller; where the "longstanding" (and so permissible) restrictions on "carry" were on concealed (emphasis mine) carry. That's not a crystal clear declaration that LOC is coming our way, but with SCOTUS, what is not said matters as much as what is said.

I'm also taking into account what our opponents have to say. I read and/or skimmed the briefs is support of Chicago & of those that address the issue, they all talk as if LOC was the Right acknowledged in Heller. Two of them go on about how useful the 'stop & frisk' laws are & how Incorporation would make gang-bangers immune from such "as long as they carried openly." Of course, as acknowledged in the briefs, that would only apply to gang-bangers who are not felons. But seriously, how many gang-bangers aren't? So, while being just a bit irrational, this is also a pretty clear indication that those supporting Chicago believe that LOC is already the Right protected by Heller & why they don't want that.

What the Bradys & others have to say matters also. They aren't real unhappy over LOC. What really gets their panties in a bunch is the thought of just about anybody being allowed to carry concealed. I have also heard a rumor that even Ms. King (of Nordyke vs. King fame) isn't upset over the thought of LOC. Its concealed carry that gets her worked up.

While it's true that no case currently going on specifically addresses the issue of LOC vs. CCW as the Minimum Constitutional Standard, that may be because no one disputes that LOC is already such. Also, the case in DC addressing 'carry' (the one that will be heard on the 22nd) might very well decide the issue. While I think Gura is pushing for SI-CCW, the court may rule that a license for CCW can be required, but not for LOC because they may think as Chicago does & that LOC is already here. Or, SCOTUS, in the interest of "Judicial Economy" may clarify the issue when they rule in McDonald. I am especially hopeful of this given the number of opposition briefs that already assume LOC is the standard.

As for CCW is this state, Kid Stanislaus is right. We ARE the propeller head state. But, one must keep in mind the forces pushing for CCW to stay. To ban CCW completely would disarm the rich & powerful. And CCW would have to be banned completely to keep Joe Average from from packing heat. "Separate but equal" has long been banned (at least where Civil Rights are concerned) & post-Incorporation Our Masters in Sacramento will have to decide 100% one way (SI-CCW) or the other (banned completely). I don't see them banning it completely. The rich & powerful won't like that & neither will the Hollywood crowd. That leaves me completely confident that SI-CCW will be coming our way very soon. Right after LOC.

Such is my reading of the tea leaves.

The Raisuli

navyinrwanda
01-08-2010, 1:49 PM
While it's true that no case currently going on specifically addresses the issue of LOC vs. CCW as the Minimum Constitutional Standard, that may be because no one disputes that LOC is already such. Also, the case in DC addressing 'carry' (the one that will be heard on the 22nd) might very well decide the issue. While I think Gura is pushing for SI-CCW, the court may rule that a license for CCW can be required, but not for LOC because they may think as Chicago does & that LOC is already here. Or, SCOTUS, in the interest of "Judicial Economy" may clarify the issue when they rule in McDonald. I am especially hopeful of this given the number of opposition briefs that already assume LOC is the standard.
Both Palmer and Sykes demand what is essentially "shall issue" carry — open or concealed, at the discretion of the local government. Here are the pertinent sections from Alan Gura's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Palmer v. District of Columbia:
Defendants have many options at their disposal. Assuming they wish to regulate the carrying of weapons, Defendants may, as suggested by their basic carrying statute, license the carrying of handguns much as they do the keeping of handguns. They may entirely proscribe the carrying of handguns in either a concealed or open manner. And they may restrict the carrying of
handguns in sensitive places. But Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to legislate for the District, only to enjoin those practices and policies that violate the right to arms until the District conforms its conduct to constitutional requirements.
...
The right to bear arms is not abrogated by recognition of its well-established regulation. To the contrary, precedent approving of the government’s ability to regulate the carrying of handguns forcefully confirms the general rule to which it establishes exceptions...
...
Plaintiffs are plainly entitled to summary judgment. The Court should enjoin Defendants from barring gun registration by non-residents, enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7- 2502.02(a)(4), and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Also, the Supreme Court takes the principle of constitutional avoidance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashwander_v._Tennessee_Valley_Authority#Formulatio n_of_the_avoidance_doctrine) much more seriously than judicial economy. Since "bear arms" is not an issue at bar in McDonald, there is every reason to expect that it will not figure in the decision.

Eckolaker
01-08-2010, 2:04 PM
Historically open carry has been recognized as a right, and concealed carry as either a privilege or flat out illegal, even going back to the common law. Open carry was seen as the way that honest men carried their arms, and concealed carry the domain of criminals. If you had ill intent in mind, you would not be displaying your weaponry for all the world to see. That is why there have been laws against concealed carry in most states since their founding.

Permits are exemptions from laws that would criminalize certain activities, such as carrying a concealed weapon. Any activity that ordinarily would be considered criminal and which one must request an exemption permit for and having the possibility of denial or an extrajudicial revocation is, by definition, a privilege. Hence concealed carry can never be considered a right as long as it is, by default, illegal to do so, and one must obtain a permit to lawfully practice it.

Open carry, on the other hand, is still generally recognized as lawful in most states, and a permit is not usually required to do so. You do not have to fear criminal prosecution, nor ask anyone's permission, nor pay a fee or tax to openly carry a loaded firearm. That by definition is a right. Undoubtedly this is also what most common people would tell you when asked what the meaning of "right to bear arms" is as enumerated in our Constitution (not that their opinion is legally binding).

I believe that if the Supreme Court were to ever rule on what form of bearing arms is the Constitutionally-protected method, it would be unlicensed, untaxed, loaded open carry. I doubt very much if they would extend that legal protection to concealed carry given its history in this country. States most likely would still be able to regulate concealed carry much as they do now. But I'm not a legal scholar, just a layman who has done a lot of research, so my opinion on the matter could be completely wrong.

Tou-F'n-che

This has been my argument/point all along...unfortunately Calguns does not see it this way. I do not agree with their current direction as I believe even the best outcome does not restore full 2nd Amendment rights to the proper definition out lined in the Constitution.

wildhawker
01-08-2010, 2:10 PM
It's highly likely that after we have SI carry permits & reciprocity, end of the AW ban, no Roster, accessible high caps, modified waiting period process, SBRs, suppressors and other such victories that some will continue to see a failed strategy where others enjoy the newfound freedoms brought by the same.

Tou-F'n-che

This has been my argument/point all along...unfortunately Calguns does not see it this way. I do not agree with their current direction as I believe even the best outcome does not restore full 2nd Amendment rights to the proper definition out lined in the Constitution.

navyinrwanda
01-08-2010, 2:14 PM
I believe that if the Supreme Court were to ever rule on what form of bearing arms is the Constitutionally-protected method, it would be unlicensed, untaxed, loaded open carry.
I think carry will be licensed or permitted, whether it's open or concealed. Of course, the license or permit couldn't be too expensive, it couldn't be issued in a discriminatory manner, and it would have to serve a significant government interest, such as insuring that prohibited persons were not armed. In short, it couldn't pose excessive burdens, and would likely bear little resemblance to the current CCW system in California.

GoodEyeSniper
01-08-2010, 2:20 PM
Partial concealment is still concealment.

wait, wasn't he talking specifically about a holster? Holsters always at least partially conceal a handgun, so there's no way that's right.

Except for maybe some shooting competition holsters...

grammaton76
01-08-2010, 2:45 PM
wait, wasn't he talking specifically about a holster? Holsters always at least partially conceal a handgun, so there's no way that's right.

Except for maybe some shooting competition holsters...

He was, although there's a substantial difference between a holster that is effectively an unlocked container, and a holster which leaves a substantial part of the weapon visible.

I will observe however that I've noticed re-enactors at gun shows don't get harrassed for using flap holsters OR having their jackets cover their weapons, even though they're definitely in violation of 12025 (concealment) if using actual weapons.

Eckolaker
01-08-2010, 3:24 PM
It's highly likely that after we have SI carry permits & reciprocity, end of the AW ban, no Roster, accessible high caps, modified waiting period process, SBRs, suppressors and other such victories that some will continue to see a failed strategy where others enjoy the newfound freedoms brought by the same.

Its highly likely you are assuming far too much. Not to mention the whole cart before the horse mentality that exists.

Eckolaker
01-08-2010, 3:27 PM
I think carry will be licensed or permitted, whether it's open or concealed. Of course, the license or permit couldn't be too expensive, it couldn't be issued in a discriminatory manner, and it would have to serve a significant government interest, such as insuring that prohibited persons were not armed. In short, it couldn't pose excessive burdens, and would likely bear little resemblance to the current CCW system in California.


Again, please show me the article and section of the US Constitution that requires a permit for carrying a weapon?

Why should we consider permits a success? If anything you are giving the anti-gunners exactly what they want...A way to control to the finite degree who may carry a weapon and who may not. Look at the people in office who will be determining who are prohibited persons and who are not.

wildhawker
01-08-2010, 3:31 PM
Its highly likely you are assuming far too much. Not to mention the whole cart before the horse mentality that exists.

So... let me get this straight.

You'd prefer to [ignore the legal basis for these outcomes and] assume that we lose these cases and end up with a severely-limited RKBA?

I have a difficult time understanding the practical basis for your vision of the future. Your goals, I get- how we get there, not so much.

navyinrwanda
01-08-2010, 3:56 PM
Again, please show me the article and section of the US Constitution that requires a permit for carrying a weapon?

Why should we consider permits a success? If anything you are giving the anti-gunners exactly what they want...A way to control to the finite degree who may carry a weapon and who may not. Look at the people in office who will be determining who are prohibited persons and who are not.
There doesn't have to be an "article and section of the US Constitution" to allow local governments to do anything. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const. am. 10. So, absent a Federal court ruling to the contrary, local governments can require permits to carry weapons — open or concealed.

And if there is a Supreme Court ruling on bearing arms, it'll pretty much be the last word — regardless of any other interpretation of the text of the Constitution. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is.” See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

I think it's extremely unlikely that, if they take a case on bearing arms, the Supreme Court will prevent local governments from regulating the carrying of weapons with some sort of permit or license. And I think most people who are following the litigation would agree with this sentiment. So if you don't consider "permits a success," then you'll probably have to convince the California legislature to let you carry without one.

hoffmang
01-08-2010, 4:52 PM
I've participated in a couple threads where Gene and I debated this issue at length. My concern is this: I can't think of a single other Constitutionally-protected right which is subject to a restriction where you must obtain a permit in order to exercise that right in any way.

Requiring a permit for any exercise of a right to carry goes far beyond a simple time/place/manner restriction.
Adult magazines are protected First Amendment Speech. It is constitutional for municipalities to require a license to sell adult magazines. A warrant is a reverse permit.

The factor that I also think people are missing is that a right to LOC (only) in California would likely be gutted by reaction from private property owners. Open carry only has a large risk of having malls and restaurants post signs banning carry - signs that we'll all be required to follow.

A right gutted at most places isn't very useful at the end of the day.

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
01-08-2010, 10:26 PM
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states
This is what McDonald will hopefully do, prohibit the states.

Merle
01-08-2010, 10:35 PM
Adult magazines are protected First Amendment Speech. It is constitutional for municipalities to require a license to sell adult magazines.

Selling XXX (e.g. crosses, dirty magazines, 30 round magazines) isn't protected.

Creating and "using" one is though.

Meplat
01-09-2010, 2:18 AM
I can't wait to see this hypothetical exciting new line of gun galoshes.

Take proper care o your leather and your iron, and use an outside shoulder rig. Problem solved.

Meplat
01-09-2010, 2:23 AM
And that's the REAL reason we lost the war!!:p

We didn't lose, we quite. Our soldiers did everything asked of them they wone the battles. CBS lost the war. I was there, I know.

Sorry, it's a sore spot fore me. Lost a lot of classmates.:cool:

Mulay El Raisuli
01-09-2010, 5:17 AM
Also, the Supreme Court takes the principle of constitutional avoidance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashwander_v._Tennessee_Valley_Authority#Formulatio n_of_the_avoidance_doctrine) much more seriously than judicial economy. Since "bear arms" is not an issue at bar in McDonald, there is every reason to expect that it will not figure in the decision.


And there is a LOT to be said for that. I'm certainly not to going to predict you're wrong about this. I wasn't predicting that "judicial economy" will play a part, merely stating that they could use it.

Still, its not quite correct to say that "and bear" isn't an issue at bar since the "stop & frisk" bit I mentioned is a part of case now, being that at least 2 of the briefs offer it as justification to rule against Mr. McDonald.

Will that be enough to get SCOTUS to define the issue? Or are you right in that they'll avoid it for now? Here is where you imagine the big announcer-type voice intoning NO MAN CAN SAY.

The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
01-09-2010, 7:46 AM
Both Palmer and Sykes demand what is essentially "shall issue" carry — open or concealed, at the discretion of the local government. Here are the pertinent sections from Alan Gura's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Palmer v. District of Columbia:


I haven't been following Palmer much. I've been paying attention to matters here in the PRK instead. And of course, Sykes is just about CCW. But I have now gone thru all the links posted by Gene & so have read Gura's Memo.

I'm not sure how this is going to go. While Our Guy does indeed say that it's DC discretion on how to go (CCW or LOC), the cases cited (ESP Nunn) were decided on the basis that restrictions on OPEN carry were unconstitutional. Our Guy does go on to note that DC seems to prefer concealed carry (due modern concerns & like that) & maybe that's why he's giving them an 'out' (to keep licensing so they'll be happy).

Should modern concerns matter? Isn't Original Intent supposed to rule the day when it comes to Constitutional Law? Maybe Our Guy is setting them up? Hoping that they rule that SI-Issue is the One Way just so that it can be struck down later because it will necessarily require fees to be paid & requiring fees to be paid for the exercise of a Constitutional Right is forbidden? Maybe the Court will go with Nunn & rule that LOC is the One Way right off the bat?

I'm going to have to ponder on this a bit.


The Raisuli

navyinrwanda
01-09-2010, 1:23 PM
Still, its not quite correct to say that "and bear" isn't an issue at bar since the "stop & frisk" bit I mentioned is a part of case now, being that at least 2 of the briefs offer it as justification to rule against Mr. McDonald.

Issues raised by amici don't usually figure in a final opinion, especially when action on them would rise to the level of finding a statute unconstitutional. I suspect the best we can hope for in McDonald is some helpful dicta on bear arms that would provide guidance to lower courts.

But it's absolutely true that no one can predict what will happen when an issue is before a court — particularly something as important, complex and contentious as interpretation of a fundamental enumerated constitutional right.

navyinrwanda
01-09-2010, 1:49 PM
Maybe Our Guy is setting them up? Hoping that they rule that SI-Issue is the One Way just so that it can be struck down later because it will necessarily require fees to be paid & requiring fees to be paid for the exercise of a Constitutional Right is forbidden?
Reasonable fees, as part of a licensing scheme that is not otherwise overly burdensome, are not unconstitutional, even when they involve constitutionally protected conduct. Any such scheme that involves speech does have to pass strict scrutiny, be content-neutral, and pass the time, place and manner test. Since not all constitutionally protected conduct is subject to strict scrutiny, it's not clear what form or system of scrutiny the Court will ultimately apply to the right to keep and bear arms (other than not rational basis).

I don't want to put words in Alan Gura's mouth, but it's my understanding that he thinks that a reasonable licensing scheme for bear arms is acceptable. I have no idea what his opinion is on the probability of achieving a constitutionally protected "no license/permit/fee" right to bear arms. Maybe Gene Hoffman could comment, since he's directly involved in this litigation.

It's my opinion that the Court won't prohibit a reasonable licensing scheme for bearing arms, and will leave the details (including the choice of whether or not to have one) up to states and localities. And I think it's highly unlikely that California will allow regular citizens to carry weapons — openly or concealed — without some form of permit. Note that "reasonable" is the key factor — I certainly don't think that California's current system is reasonable, and I don't think the Court would think so, either.

nobody_special
01-09-2010, 9:17 PM
Adult magazines are protected First Amendment Speech. It is constitutional for municipalities to require a license to sell adult magazines. A warrant is a reverse permit.

I'll grant the point, grudgingly. But a license requirement for commercial sales of a particular type of speech is quite different from a requiring a license for any speech whatsoever, is it not? Licenses are required for commercial sales of firearms as well, and few protest that fact.

Adult magazines are a "fringe" element of the 1st amendment. On the other hand, the bearing of arms is protected specifically, using stronger language than is used in the 1st amendment ("shall not be infringed" vs. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"). We're talking about a license requirement for any public exercise of a core protected activity. That is unprecedented for an enumerated right.

A better comparison would be a core element of the 1st amendment: political speech. Requiring a license to bear arms for personal defense is, in my view, a violation equivalent to requiring a license to write a political blog, or even to make posts on calguns.


The factor that I also think people are missing is that a right to LOC (only) in California would likely be gutted by reaction from private property owners. Open carry only has a large risk of having malls and restaurants post signs banning carry - signs that we'll all be required to follow.

A right gutted at most places isn't very useful at the end of the day.

-Gene

Here we are in agreement. And it's not like I believe the courts will adopt my interpretation; my point is merely that this is the position they should adopt if they have any intellectual honesty. But then, the courts seem to love to whittle away at the corners of enumerated rights. :whistling:

artherd
01-09-2010, 10:02 PM
Oh gads not this again.

Has there been a spill of hallucinogenic gas in CA lately? OC will not be decided as the only means of carry.

hoffmang
01-09-2010, 11:29 PM
I don't want to put words in Alan Gura's mouth, but it's my understanding that he thinks that a reasonable licensing scheme for bear arms is acceptable. I have no idea what his opinion is on the probability of achieving a constitutionally protected "no license/permit/fee" right to bear arms. Maybe Gene Hoffman could comment, since he's directly involved in this litigation.

First, I can't put words in Alan's mouth either but let me share some thinking. "Acceptable" isn't how I'd describe it. Stare Decisis from the 19th and early 20th century makes it pretty clear that bearing arms in public can be subject to reasonable (in an honest definition of reasonable - inexpensive - requirements go to actually reducing risk of unsafe gun handling, etc.) permitting. It is not clear that there are 5 votes for more than saying that cities and states get to choose the manner of carry up to and including permits that require a background check and training.

-Gene

detcord
01-09-2010, 11:37 PM
how would one carry while wearing a suit?


brings up an interesting idea... calguns uoc meet in suits with droplegs? it would bring about more press because its overall quite strange.

N6ATF
01-09-2010, 11:59 PM
Try to get it in writing from the CA AG that hip carried under a clear raincoat (like what folks frequently wear at Disneyland) is not concealed. That's your foul-weather open carry solution. :)

I wondered about that in the UOC FAQ.

Oh gads not this again.

Has there been a spill of hallucinogenic gas in CA lately? OC will not be decided as the only means of carry.

I wouldn't put it past the legislature to abolish CC, tax OCers directly via licensing and training, and indirectly by requiring all businesses to add $10 million in insurance, if they do not "exempt" themselves by putting "NO GUNS" signs at all entrances.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-10-2010, 4:51 AM
Issues raised by amici don't usually figure in a final opinion, especially when action on them would rise to the level of finding a statute unconstitutional. I suspect the best we can hope for in McDonald is some helpful dicta on bear arms that would provide guidance to lower courts.

But it's absolutely true that no one can predict what will happen when an issue is before a court — particularly something as important, complex and contentious as interpretation of a fundamental enumerated constitutional right.


All of this, & what you have in your other post, is quite true. While I like what nobody special has to say, I'm thinking that "purity" might not carry the day. Which would be too bad. All I know for sure is that I hate the idea of asking 'Mother May I?' to exercise the Right.


The Raisuli

navyinrwanda
01-10-2010, 12:55 PM
First, I can't put words in Alan's mouth either but let me share some thinking. "Acceptable" isn't how I'd describe it. Stare Decisis from the 19th and early 20th century makes it pretty clear that bearing arms in public can be subject to reasonable (in an honest definition of reasonable - inexpensive - requirements go to actually reducing risk of unsafe gun handling, etc.) permitting. It is not clear that there are 5 votes for more than saying that cities and states get to choose the manner of carry up to and including permits that require a background check and training.

-Gene
Not the best choice of words on my part.

Commonly heard from many proponents of open carry is a fervent desire to establish an unrestricted, unlicensed, and free (no cost) constitutionally-protected right to openly carry loaded weapons. I think it's highly unlikely that the current Supreme Court would go that far. Such an outcome isn't ideal, but would still be a huge improvement over the current situation — particularly in California.

I do wonder if an understanding of this outcome might affect attitudes among open carry proponents...particularly since the specifics of licensed carry would be left to state and local political bodies.

Kid Stanislaus
01-10-2010, 3:58 PM
We didn't lose, we quite. Our soldiers did everything asked of them they wone the battles. CBS lost the war. I was there, I know.

Sorry, it's a sore spot fore me. Lost a lot of classmates.:cool:

I'll concede the point.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-11-2010, 6:00 AM
Commonly heard from many proponents of open carry is a fervent desire to establish an unrestricted, unlicensed, and free (no cost) constitutionally-protected right to openly carry loaded weapons. I think it's highly unlikely that the current Supreme Court would go that far. Such an outcome isn't ideal, but would still be a huge improvement over the current situation — particularly in California.


That's the desire (on my part anyway) because that was the Constitutional Standard in 1791 AND in 1868. Unlike Gene, I don't see any Constitutional support for CCW, even if is it is Shall Issue, or any other infringements. But, I don't know that SCOTUS will limit itself to Original Intent either.


I do wonder if an understanding of this outcome might affect attitudes among open carry proponents...particularly since the specifics of licensed carry would be left to state and local political bodies.


If I follow this correctly, my attitude would be 'disappointment' at SCOTUS for not following OI & precedent. Also, I'm not seeing why the specifics would be left to the locals. Federal court have given us federal standards before. Why would this be any different?


The Raisuli

navyinrwanda
01-11-2010, 12:46 PM
If I follow this correctly, my attitude would be 'disappointment' at SCOTUS for not following OI & precedent. Also, I'm not seeing why the specifics would be left to the locals. Federal court have given us federal standards before. Why would this be any different?

We'll all be disappointed, to say the least. But it's probably the likely outcome.

Yes, federal courts can issue very prescriptive standards. One recent — and very much over-the-top — example is United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, 473 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006) (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/08/26/05-10067eb.pdf), a recent decision from our very own 9th Circuit. In this decision, the court created a new Miranda-like set of rules to govern computer searches. It did this all on its own, with no citations or supporting authority. Orin Kerr, a 4th Amendment scholar, has written extensively about this decision at the Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_23-2009_08_29.shtml#1251325479). At CYB3RCRIM3 (http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2009/08/earthquake.html), Susan Brenner called it an “earthquake.”

Thankfully, this sort of judicial overreach is pretty rare. So, since almost all gun regulation is currently left to the states, I think it's likely that post-McDonald (or other cases more on point) much of the regulation of carrying will still be left to the states — leaving the manner of carry and the details of any license or permit system in the hands of local elected officials.

Which still leaves me curious about how recognition of this likelihood might affect open carry activists...

Mulay El Raisuli
01-12-2010, 6:27 AM
We'll all be disappointed, to say the least. But it's probably the likely outcome.

Yes, federal courts can issue very prescriptive standards. One recent — and very much over-the-top — example is United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, 473 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006) (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/08/26/05-10067eb.pdf), a recent decision from our very own 9th Circuit. In this decision, the court created a new Miranda-like set of rules to govern computer searches. It did this all on its own, with no citations or supporting authority. Orin Kerr, a 4th Amendment scholar, has written extensively about this decision at the Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_23-2009_08_29.shtml#1251325479). At CYB3RCRIM3 (http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2009/08/earthquake.html), Susan Brenner called it an “earthquake.”

Thankfully, this sort of judicial overreach is pretty rare. So, since almost all gun regulation is currently left to the states, I think it's likely that post-McDonald (or other cases more on point) much of the regulation of carrying will still be left to the states — leaving the manner of carry and the details of any license or permit system in the hands of local elected officials.

Which still leaves me curious about how recognition of this likelihood might affect open carry activists...


I think a better example is the detailed regs that came after another New Right came into being; the school busing schemes that followed Brown v. Board of Education. The States didn't quite get it right & so the federal courts stepped in. That's why I don't think that the current system (of letting states regulate the Right) will survive.

So, what will happen? As I gaze into my crystal ball, I see the Original Intent of 1791 & 1868 carrying the day. LOC was the Constitutional Standard then, it will be so again. Regs in re CCW will be allowable, but there will be federal standards to 'guide' the states in the writing of those regs. Felons will be banned (for now at least) & so will those with domestic misdemeanor convictions (also, for now). Bans against LOC in cars will be struck down eventually. Gun free school zones will go fairly soon. Etc., etc.

This UOC activist will wait the five months. I won't wait past that, but I will wait until then.


The Raisuli