PDA

View Full Version : How long will a 626.9 Challenge take after McDonald?


sfpcservice
03-17-2010, 9:00 AM
Someone with more paypal skills than me should start a pool....

Window_Seat
03-17-2010, 9:39 AM
With CCW, we should be able to carry within a school zone, otherwise such restrictions would open themselves up to more bi***slapping in the courts, or am I too naive? I'd like to see a poll posted after the McDonald Verdict that asks what date we get CCW Shall Issue, or May issue with SD & P being defined as GC.

(ETA): I could see the CA Legislature attempting to draft an "endless list" of restricted/sensitive places for purposes of a CCW permit when issued with the GC defined in a future favorable Sykes court verdict.

Erik.

Untamed1972
03-17-2010, 10:12 AM
(ETA): I could see the CA Legislature attempting to draft an "endless list" of restricted/sensitive places for purposes of a CCW permit when issued with the GC defined in a future favorable Sykes court verdict.

Erik.


but I think the challenge could be made that under the previous CCW system none of those restrictions were in place. So what makes them nessecary now? I think it would seem awefully fishy if all the sudden when the state is forced to go shall issue, that they would turn around a slap a bunch of restrictions on it to basically nullify the right.

Not saying CA wouldn't try.....but I dont see how it could stand.

1911su16b870
03-17-2010, 10:24 AM
IMO A pro-McDonald decision will not effect PC626.9.

sfpcservice
03-17-2010, 10:30 AM
So if McDonald is won, and there is a basis of self defense included in the opinion, that wouldn't have any bearing on a "self defense Free" 1000' radius?

wildhawker
03-17-2010, 11:01 AM
California will not be the first place to test GFSZ in Federal court.

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/default.html#

Untamed1972
03-17-2010, 11:05 AM
So if McDonald is won, and there is a basis of self defense included in the opinion, that wouldn't have any bearing on a "self defense Free" 1000' radius?


It would seem they would need to at least revise the restriction to school property only. Especially since in some urban areas there is a school of some sort every couple of blocks and the 1000' foot ban would basically nullify the 2A rights of anyone living or traveling thru those areas. And would place an excessive burden on people to have to research their route of travel, especially in areas they are unfamiliar with to try and stay within in the law. And then what happens when someone makes a wrong turn and accidentally finds themself inone of those school zones?

Since 2A would be a fundamental right, how would it be any different then them trying to pass a law that says a person can't wear a shirt with a cuss word on it within 1000' of a school, or be in posession of a bible near a school?

The existence of a school should not nullify the rights of a free, tax paying citizens traveling on public roads or sidewalks.

motorhead
03-17-2010, 11:20 AM
i think it would depend on whether a appropriate case was pending. otherwise someone would have to go and get arrested. we all know how quickly the legal process moves.

tombinghamthegreat
03-17-2010, 11:42 AM
If McDonald goes well i think the GFZ will be under attack or at least rendered unenforceable.

Untamed1972
03-17-2010, 11:52 AM
i think it would depend on whether a appropriate case was pending. otherwise someone would have to go and get arrested. we all know how quickly the legal process moves.


Not nessecarily. All you need is to find a clean plaintiff who lives across the street from a school and challenge the law in federal court. The mere existence of the law has already harmed them as they are unable to exercise their right to bear arms even on their own front yard or while walking their dog because of the school zone law w/o risking arrest and prosecution.

Theseus
03-17-2010, 12:20 PM
Not nessecarily. All you need is to find a clean plaintiff who lives across the street from a school and challenge the law in federal court. The mere existence of the law has already harmed them as they are unable to exercise their right to bear arms even on their own front yard or while walking their dog because of the school zone law w/o risking arrest and prosecution.

^ IF CGF was to challenge 626.9 this is likely how they would do it.

If we took a case like mine it could distract the issues and make predicting a ruling more questionable. Although I would like to think my case could get 626.9 ruled unconstitutional I have to be rational and expect the best outcome would really be forcing them to define "private property".

sfpcservice
03-17-2010, 5:45 PM
^ IF CGF was to challenge 626.9 this is likely how they would do it.

If we took a case like mine it could distract the issues and make predicting a ruling more questionable. Although I would like to think my case could get 626.9 ruled unconstitutional I have to be rational and expect the best outcome would really be forcing them to define "private property".

What is the status of your case if you don't mind?

Mulay El Raisuli
03-18-2010, 5:44 AM
^ IF CGF was to challenge 626.9 this is likely how they would do it.

If we took a case like mine it could distract the issues and make predicting a ruling more questionable. Although I would like to think my case could get 626.9 ruled unconstitutional I have to be rational and expect the best outcome would really be forcing them to define "private property".


I don't see your case as having "distracting" issues. The core issues are the Right to bear arms. ALL of the rest (like the definition of private property) is just window dressing to the legal abomination that is 626.9.

But, the most important thing about your case is that its a criminal matter. As a matter of law, criminal matters have priority & so move through the courts MUCH faster than civil matters do. So, even though Palmer is already in a Federal Court, your case could actually reach SCOTUS first.

The reason I mention Palmer instead of some other case that limits itself to the issue of the GFSZ is that the matter of exactly how the Right to bear arms hasn't been decided yet. The big push is for making SI-CCW (along with the the Mother May I? slip that goes with that) the Minimum Constitutional Standard.

I have a big problem with that. It isn't that I don't see the greater utility of CCW. It isn't that I have no desire to CCW. Its that my desire is exactly the same as yours: that unrestricted LOC be once again the law of the land.

There's no other criminal case out there (that I know of) that is as "pure" as yours. You're not a gang-banger. There's nothing about anyone being shot. Even the GFSZ issue only matters because you were Open Carrying. Your case isn't a good case. Its a GREAT case.

Still, its also YOUR case. Your call to make. But, if you really want to restore unrestricted LOC & so short-circuit the effort to make the Mother May I? slip the Minimum Constitutional Standard, your case is the way to go.


The Raisuli

Kharn
03-18-2010, 8:03 AM
Theseus's case isnt the best. You want test cases to be civil rather than criminal so if you lose the person is not burdened with the record. Yes, they take longer but civil cases do not require witnesses, an arrest record, etc. The people challenging the law also get to choose the venue and the plaintiffs at their leisure, so they can cherry pick the absolute best case.

Theseus
03-18-2010, 10:22 AM
Theseus's case isnt the best. You want test cases to be civil rather than criminal so if you lose the person is not burdened with the record. Yes, they take longer but civil cases do not require witnesses, an arrest record, etc. The people challenging the law also get to choose the venue and the plaintiffs at their leisure, so they can cherry pick the absolute best case.

But in my case I an already burdened. I am already convicted and prohibited. I am already facing $1200 in fees and fines and 5 days Caltrans, 3 years probation. This won't change at this point but to get me out from under those things.

I am still not entirely convinced. The risk in my case is that if taken to court could be simplified by the court saying "626.9 isn't unconstitutional, the definition was simply missapplied. He was on private property and to say he wasn't was nothing more than an attempt to create ex post facto law." and remand it back to trial court.

Now, after I win my case I might then have standing and be a clean case, but as far as I see the criminal I have doubts.

demnogis
03-18-2010, 3:50 PM
Post-re-incorporation, 626.9 could be challenged along the same lines Wisconsin is doing so. Even in a shall-issue CA state there will be restrictions printed on the CCW. If the rest of the state adopts Sacramento County's restrictions that means even with a CCW your ability to carry within a GFSZ is nullified.

Maybe there would be a better result if we had a proposition to get our own RKBA amendment to the state constitution -- and I don't mean one like IL where it is "subject to police policy".

socalblue
03-18-2010, 5:19 PM
Post-re-incorporation, 626.9 could be challenged along the same lines Wisconsin is doing so. Even in a shall-issue CA state there will be restrictions printed on the CCW. If the rest of the state adopts Sacramento County's restrictions that means even with a CCW your ability to carry within a GFSZ is nullified.

Maybe there would be a better result if we had a proposition to get our own RKBA amendment to the state constitution -- and I don't mean one like IL where it is "subject to police policy".

It may well come to that at some point.

Look to AZ as a reasonable way to deal with the GFSZ issue: "You are an adult in a vehicle and the firearm is unloaded before entering school grounds. Furthermore, if you must exit your vehicle, the firearm must remain unloaded and be secured (locked) within the vehicle, out of plain view" (ARS 13-3102.I.1).

2009_gunner
03-18-2010, 6:14 PM
Wisconsin Carry filed suit over their state's GFSZ Act on January 8.
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/

Wisconsin doesn't issue CC permits to anyone, so it should be interesting. If they are successful, then it would be a good precedent for a California challenge.

Ding126
03-18-2010, 6:55 PM
I'm wanting a national ccw..Then all the rules will be the same in all 50 states.

Is that too far out of the question? Does anyone see this being possible?

Racefiend
03-18-2010, 6:56 PM
I don't know how much 2A standing Theseus' case would have being that he was UOC'ing. Seeing as how lately the 2A cases are revolving around self defense, there isn't much of a claim with an unload (non functional) weapon.

bigcalidave
03-18-2010, 7:14 PM
It'll be a nasty battle no matter what. That one will be a hard fight...

hoffmang
03-18-2010, 7:58 PM
GFSZ's in California are not low hanging fruit. We need WI to win so we can re-import.

Silly limits on your CCW will not pass muster post a win in Sykes.

-Gene

command_liner
03-18-2010, 8:14 PM
Not nessecarily. All you need is to find a clean plaintiff who lives across the street from a school and challenge the law in federal court. The mere existence of the law has already harmed them as they are unable to exercise their right to bear arms even on their own front yard or while walking their dog because of the school zone law w/o risking arrest and prosecution.

My neighbor is about the perfect candidate. Very clean.
Retired Marine -- 4 Bronze Stars, Navy Cross. Disabled.
Highly skilled shooter.
Denied CCW by local PD. Unfenced yard.
Walks dog in front yard. Has had threats.
High School being built _across the street_
The school was highly unwanted and fought for a long time. So the county
declared the area "blighted" and put the school in anyway using some
tortured reasoning.

Very clear 4th Amend. taking.

Theseus
03-18-2010, 9:50 PM
I don't know how much 2A standing Theseus' case would have being that he was UOC'ing. Seeing as how lately the 2A cases are revolving around self defense, there isn't much of a claim with an unload (non functional) weapon.

So you think I don't have a self defense claim because I was UOC? Ha. That is a funny one.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-19-2010, 7:40 AM
I am still not entirely convinced. The risk in my case is that if taken to court could be simplified by the court saying "626.9 isn't unconstitutional, the definition was simply missapplied. He was on private property and to say he wasn't was nothing more than an attempt to create ex post facto law." and remand it back to trial court.

Now, after I win my case I might then have standing and be a clean case, but as far as I see the criminal I have doubts.


"Private property" is the 'cart' that is being pulled by the 'horse' that is the ban on Open Carry. Put a bullet into the 'horse' (the real issue) & the 'cart' falls by the wayside. Your case is THE perfect vehicle to challenge the ban on Open Carry. You don't need that case out of WI to clarify things. You are THE perfect ("clean") defendant. One who would be a more than acceptable "poster boy" for the 2A. Unlike, say, Yarborough (though you may recall that I have no problems with him being the our "poster boy").

Now, the 'cart' seems to be THE approach right now. Certainly there is much there to use as the trial judge went way off the reservation in his rulings. But, that's only because the 2A doesn't apply here & an attack on the 'horse' isn't an option. By the end of June, we will have Incorporation & then the 2A will apply here. That changes the issues quite a bit. That elevates the 'horse' to being the prime issue. A victory on that issue makes all the rest irrelevant.

As for which is best for you personally? While the trial judge did go off the reservation, this was a gun case & PRK courts do seem to be accepting of that when its a gun case. So, ignoring the gun part & concentrating the procedural issues (valid as they are) might not work anyway. We have seen this sort of thing before.

BUT, post-Incorporation, the state Supreme Court might indeed Rule that everything that hinders Open Carry (which 626.9 & 12031 certainly do) is unconstitutional. My reason for optimism is the recent 'gay marriage' conflict. Our Supreme Court found an individual right there. Chief Justice Ronald George leading the way. But, when overruled by superior authority (Prop-8), the court accepted that overruling. With CJ Ronald George leading the way there too. As his subsequent statements prove, CJ George didn't like doing so, but he accepted the slap-down & followed the dictates of his job description & issued a Ruling that was in compliance with the law. IN SPITE of his personal opinion. IOW, if Mr. McDonald wins, I see a real good chance that our Supreme Court will accept that keeping & bearing is an individual Right & will then toss 626.9 & 12031 as the pieces of trash that they are. IN SPITE of the bias against the notion.

Of course, I could be wrong. There is some risk to you if you choose to emphasize the 'horse' instead of the 'cart.' But the downside is already known to you. They can't impose a punishment greater than what you bear now. Even if you lost in state court, there's still the Federal appeals process. Where you still have nothing more to lose. Which, according to the old song, means you have freedom. And of course, there's nothing to keep you from filing an appeal based on BOTH issues, is there?

OTOH, a win wouldn't just clear your name. A win (on this issue) would advance The Cause tremendously. Would give us LOC years ahead of any other case, with all the benefits that would follow from that. Individual safety & freedom would be enhanced. Even the cause of CCW would be enhanced. There's no downside to having LOC as the Minimum Constitutional Standard.

Now to address the "poster boy" issue (in a shameless appeal to your vanity). Theseus vs. Superior Court (presuming a win) would become THE case to cite for the striking down of all the silly laws that so bedevil the cause of "and bear" here in the PRK. If you lost in the state Supreme Court, it would be Theseus vs. California (because I presume a win in SCOTUS) that would be cited to enhance self defense throughout the land.

OTOH, you might not like that. Mr. McDonald is getting national & even international press attention. That might be scary. It would scare me! So you have to think about that also.

But, you could have a Ruling from the Appellate Court (where the odds of the justices doing their jobs is not as good) by summer. That puts you in front of the state Supreme Court. Where, with some luck, you could have a truly game changing Ruling from the state Supreme Court by Christmas. Think of the possibilities.

Anyway, print this out & send a copy to your lawyer. If he tells you I'm nuts, I can live with that. I've been told that before. :) But, there's been big changes in the legal landscape lately & you could be the guy to ride those changes into a tremendous change for all of us.


The Raisuli

hoffmang
03-19-2010, 10:58 PM
You don't need that case out of WI to clarify things.

You miss the social aspect. The 9th Circuit is going to uphold GFSZ's to "protect the children." It's much harder for them to do that if we can import a decision made in another circuit that is far more gun friendly.

Being right can still make you a loser.

-Gene

wildhawker
03-19-2010, 11:07 PM
An old boss and a good friend, the president of a substantial multi-state NYSE, often said that one can be right all day long and wrong at the end of it. It took some hard lessons to understand what he was trying to say.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-20-2010, 5:37 AM
You miss the social aspect. The 9th Circuit is going to uphold GFSZ's to "protect the children." It's much harder for them to do that if we can import a decision made in another circuit that is far more gun friendly.

Being right can still make you a loser.

-Gene


Something to consider, it is true. But, is the 7th. Circuit really any more willing to follow & apply the law than the 9th?


The Raisuli

Theseus
03-20-2010, 8:42 AM
You miss the social aspect. The 9th Circuit is going to uphold GFSZ's to "protect the children." It's much harder for them to do that if we can import a decision made in another circuit that is far more gun friendly.

Being right can still make you a loser.

-Gene

And the last thing I want is to become a Gorski!

I still hope that ultimately what will happen is that the DA decides not to fight the appeal. I know it won't happen, but a guy can hope!

The one good thing is that, if I am going to win it will likely be because of one of/or two reasons.

1. Private property
2. At the onset of the detention the police had no RAS to detain me in the first place. (They didn't see the firearm that would allow them to invoke 12031 until they had already detained me and ordered me to stand).

If I have a chance at anything good I have more faith that I would be able to successfully challenge 12031(e). Not for the reasons above, but that DeLong suggested 12031(e) was only constitutional because it was merely an inspection. In practicality the police are using, as in my case, PC to detain and search.

IANAL, but it seems to me that if it becomes a search in practice it makes the law unconstitutional, but I am willing to be wrong. If all I get in this respect is the court ruling that anything further than a voluntary inspection is not allowed then I have done my part.

hoffmang
03-20-2010, 8:06 PM
Something to consider, it is true. But, is the 7th. Circuit really any more willing to follow & apply the law than the 9th?


The Raisuli

The 7th went 3-0 that Skoien in US v. Skoien required at least intermediate scrutiny to possess firearms to hunt with an MCDV. Now, that case is going en-banc so it may be worse, but I doubt we'd get the same thing on the same facts on any 3 judges in the 9th.

-Gene

hoffmang
03-20-2010, 8:08 PM
If I have a chance at anything good I have more faith that I would be able to successfully challenge 12031(e).

There are much better fact patterns than yours to challenge 12031(e). I don't mean that to disparage your appeal, but I am saying that affirming 12031(e) on "enh" facts is a real risk compared to just bringing the exact right challenge to 12031(e) where the law looks stupid even to anti-gun judges.

-Gene

RP1911
03-20-2010, 8:23 PM
There are much better fact patterns than yours to challenge 12031(e). I don't mean that to disparage your appeal, but I am saying that affirming 12031(e) on "enh" facts is a real risk compared to just bringing the exact right challenge to 12031(e) where the law looks stupid even to anti-gun judges.

-Gene

Why do I get the feeling that you have something up your sleeve.

Theseus
03-20-2010, 8:23 PM
There are much better fact patterns than yours to challenge 12031(e). I don't mean that to disparage your appeal, but I am saying that affirming 12031(e) on "enh" facts is a real risk compared to just bringing the exact right challenge to 12031(e) where the law looks stupid even to anti-gun judges.

-Gene

Am not sure what "enh" means? Typo?

I am sure there are some good cases, but I just don't see how the Cal Supreme can say "e" is legal because it isn't a search or detention and then allow the police to use it as a search and detention.

I don't really care as much what can or can't be overturned in my case. I am OK with just being able to make a convincing enough argument to own guns again. :)

But one thing I am sure in is that if I win and the ruling is published it would be good for more than just me.

hoffmang
03-20-2010, 10:37 PM
"enh" means "not so good."

I know your cases facts well, and it is no the most compelling case against 12031(e). You have to remember that you are in State Court - a State Court which has repeatedly ruled 12031(e) constitutional.

-Gene

demnogis
03-21-2010, 1:27 AM
Basically what you're saying Gene, is that we need to keep decisions regarding the constitutionality of anything involving RKBA out of the CA State courts and moved on up to Fed/Supreme court?

truthseeker
03-21-2010, 8:58 AM
Not nessecarily. All you need is to find a clean plaintiff who lives across the street from a school and challenge the law in federal court. The mere existence of the law has already harmed them as they are unable to exercise their right to bear arms even on their own front yard or while walking their dog because of the school zone law w/o risking arrest and prosecution.

I'm am this guy!

hoffmang
03-21-2010, 10:07 AM
Basically what you're saying Gene, is that we need to keep decisions regarding the constitutionality of anything involving RKBA out of the CA State courts and moved on up to Fed/Supreme court?

No. I'm saying that certain closer calls should follow the following strategy:

1. Find the equivalent law in a more gun friendly circuit. Win it in the sister circuit.

2. Then challenge that law here in the 9th. That leaves the 9th with this problem: Agree with the sister circuit or give us a much better chance of getting cert to SCOTUS.

That's called using the 9th Circuit's weakness against them. If you do it in the other order then the other circuit may follow the 9th and the other circuits have better reputations with SCOTUS.

Winning takes superior tactics - not just being "correct." Compare Silveira v. Lockyer to Parker v. DC which you now know as DC v Heller.

All that said, there are some unique California laws that are so stupid when they are challenged with the right facts, that it's embarrassing for even an unsympathetic 9th Circuit judge to be on the other side.

-Gene

hoffmang
03-21-2010, 11:03 AM
Basically what you're saying Gene, is that we need to keep decisions regarding the constitutionality of anything involving RKBA out of the CA State courts and moved on up to Fed/Supreme court?

And my apologies - I somewhat misread your statement and it is correct. In California we should stay away from state court. The California state courts are not at all our friends. Federal courts will be far more rational and they have to worry that we keep winning in SCOTUS.

-Gene

Racefiend
03-21-2010, 7:27 PM
So you think I don't have a self defense claim because I was UOC? Ha. That is a funny one.

I didn't say you have no claim. I was questioning how much of a claim there may be. Heller ruled that a gun had to be operational to be used for self defense, thereby ruling the law requiring it being locked/dismantled unconstitutional. A gun cannot operate without ammunition (aka non-operational). If it was loaded, I can see it, but unloaded I just don't see how it fits in with Heller.

Maybe instead of just laughing you can enlighten me on how a strong claim exists?

Theseus
03-21-2010, 9:05 PM
I didn't say you have no claim. I was questioning how much of a claim there may be. Heller ruled that a gun had to be operational to be used for self defense, thereby ruling the law requiring it being locked/dismantled unconstitutional. A gun cannot operate without ammunition (aka non-operational). If it was loaded, I can see it, but unloaded I just don't see how it fits in with Heller.

Maybe instead of just laughing you can enlighten me on how a strong claim exists?

I guess I am a little confused then. It seemed before that you suggested that since I didn't have a loaded handgun that I didn't have a self-defense argument.

Can you please explain in full your question so that I can be clear as to what I am answering?

hoffmang
03-21-2010, 10:00 PM
It seemed before that you suggested that since I didn't have a loaded handgun that I didn't have a self-defense argument.

He is pretty sagely pointing out that if the other side was very smart, they would say that an unloaded firearm isn't adequate self defense and that the Second Amendment right is about self defense, thus your unloaded firearm carrying isn't "bearing" as it's understood under the 2A...

-Gene

demnogis
03-22-2010, 1:17 AM
And the unfairness to that is that the legislature and law have disallowed us the option to "bear" a firearm as it's understood under the 2A...

I'm guessing that one will have it's day in the 9th as well :45:

He is pretty sagely pointing out that if the other side was very smart, they would say that an unloaded firearm isn't adequate self defense and that the Second Amendment right is about self defense, thus your unloaded firearm carrying isn't "bearing" as it's understood under the 2A...

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
03-22-2010, 5:47 AM
The 7th went 3-0 that Skoien in US v. Skoien required at least intermediate scrutiny to possess firearms to hunt with an MCDV. Now, that case is going en-banc so it may be worse, but I doubt we'd get the same thing on the same facts on any 3 judges in the 9th.

-Gene


A good point.


The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
03-22-2010, 5:49 AM
He is pretty sagely pointing out that if the other side was very smart, they would say that an unloaded firearm isn't adequate self defense and that the Second Amendment right is about self defense, thus your unloaded firearm carrying isn't "bearing" as it's understood under the 2A...

-Gene


On the other hand, by not allowing him to carry loaded, the PRK isn't allowing him to exercise the Right properly since he can't properly defend himself.


The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
03-22-2010, 5:55 AM
The one good thing is that, if I am going to win it will likely be because of one of/or two reasons.

1. Private property
2. At the onset of the detention the police had no RAS to detain me in the first place. (They didn't see the firearm that would allow them to invoke 12031 until they had already detained me and ordered me to stand).


Those are the only 2 ways if you limit the appeal to those issues. There's still the core issue of "and bear" & how the PRK doesn't permit that. At least not w/o some unconstitutional hoop jumping & assorted nonsense.

Also, you said elsewhere that your goal is unrestricted LOC. As near as I can tell, yours is the only case out there that has a hope of getting us that. Have you given up so soon?


The Raisuli

GuyW
03-22-2010, 7:51 AM
He is pretty sagely pointing out that if the other side was very smart, they would say that an unloaded firearm isn't adequate self defense and that the Second Amendment right is about self defense, thus your unloaded firearm carrying isn't "bearing" as it's understood under the 2A...

-Gene

That's an anti's argument? You can carry a loaded gun but not an unloaded one?? They might be irrational enough to offer that, I suppose....

I can't really see the Brady Bunch arguing, "keep your gun loaded at all times..."

.

hoffmang
03-22-2010, 6:52 PM
That's an anti's argument? You can carry a loaded gun but not an unloaded one?? They might be irrational enough to offer that, I suppose....

I can't really see the Brady Bunch arguing, "keep your gun loaded at all times..."

.

Anti's end up being represented by Cities, Counties and States. One can't assume that those counselors are universally as ignorant as the actual anti gun folks usually are.

-Gene

smallshot13
03-26-2010, 1:35 PM
GFSZ's in California are not low hanging fruit. We need WI to win so we can re-import.

Silly limits on your CCW will not pass muster post a win in Sykes.

-Gene

By this statement, I presume you believe that a Sykes win would cure the current Sac County CCW restriction on a 12050 permit that says "No permitted weapon is allowed within 1,000 feet of any school grounds".? That restriction seems to be more restrictive than anything in 626.9.

thrumper
03-26-2010, 2:06 PM
If the McDonald case determines, based on the 14th Amendment, that our right to bear arms cannot denied by the state without due process, will that determination have any possible implications on California's AW rules? If citizens of other states are allowed to have black guns, why shouldn't we based on the same reasoning? Or am I being overly optimistic?

hoffmang
03-26-2010, 10:37 PM
By this statement, I presume you believe that a Sykes win would cure the current Sac County CCW restriction on a 12050 permit that says "No permitted weapon is allowed within 1,000 feet of any school grounds".? That restriction seems to be more restrictive than anything in 626.9.

The Sac 1000' CCW restriction goes away in a post Sykes world.

-Gene

demnogis
03-26-2010, 11:38 PM
That is what we hope for.

But what if it is upheld that a CCW is still a privilege and not in fact a right and can have arbitrary restrictions? Or would post-Sykes policy dictate that CA adopt the same rules and regulations from neighboring states in regards to CCW issuance and policies?

The Sac 1000' CCW restriction goes away in a post Sykes world.

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
03-27-2010, 7:37 AM
That is what we hope for.

But what if it is upheld that a CCW is still a privilege and not in fact a right and can have arbitrary restrictions? Or would post-Sykes policy dictate that CA adopt the same rules and regulations from neighboring states in regards to CCW issuance and policies?


McDonald will give us a "floor" for the Right that no state will be allowed under. If we can get unrestricted LOC established as the Minimum Constitutional Standard then CCW would remain a privilege.

BUT, already well-established precedent (in re other Constitutional Rights) will prevent a state from being arbitrary in how they issue. If a state has CCW at all, they'll HAVE TO be fair. CCW would either HAVE TO be Shall Issue, or NO issue. For the reasons I've gone over elsewhere, 'no issue' simply isn't a realistic possibility & so isn't to be feared.

As for 626.9, most other states don't have that & the Federal GFSZ won't withstand court review. That doesn't bode well for 626.9 living for long after McDonald (which the case that really matters) comes down. Because we'll have Federal standards, it isn't a matter of the PRK being allowed to keep the 1,000' limit. The Federal courts would have to impose the limit on all other states. I just don't see any Federal court doing that.


The Raisuli

hoffmang
03-27-2010, 9:03 AM
That is what we hope for.

But what if it is upheld that a CCW is still a privilege and not in fact a right and can have arbitrary restrictions? Or would post-Sykes policy dictate that CA adopt the same rules and regulations from neighboring states in regards to CCW issuance and policies?

If LOC is prohibited, then CCW is not a privilege but the core right. If LOC comes back (and I seriously doubt California will legislatively choose that for a host of reasons) then the 12050 license can't have arbitrary restrictions that moot its usefulness.

-Gene

kwikrnu
03-27-2010, 9:19 AM
I'm wanting a national ccw..Then all the rules will be the same in all 50 states.

Is that too far out of the question? Does anyone see this being possible?


When you get national CCW you'll have regulations by which authorities can remove your right to carry. You'd be much better off with what you have.

I'm in TN (we don't have the freedom of open carry like CA) and the State has taken my permit because they can.