PDA

View Full Version : After McDonald will All States Laws be The Same


Strpd_Up_Brotha
03-22-2010, 3:09 PM
Meaning if we do get CCW's , I see a lot of States have different laws as to when and when not to shoot....All these States laws are Brain Boggling..Then when you read about having to have an escape avenue, etc.....Where is the Line? We Have guns to defend ourselves....but have to know the split second when to use it......I'm just trying to get a good grasp on it...having a very hard time.......Man we will end up in jail for more time than the guy trying to do harm to us!!!!!!!!

Window_Seat
03-22-2010, 3:23 PM
will All States Laws be The Same

Not at all, not a chance, but national reciprocity will certainly be in order, and I'm "cautiously optimistic" that when Sykes v. McGinniss (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness) moves forward pending the outcome of McDonald and Nordyke, we will have some kind of bill in the Congress that calls for it.

It's important to remember and emphasize that CCW will NOT magically happen at the moment that McDonald is decided. Caselaw has to be established in that area if the legislature continues to be themselves.

Erik.

Meplat
03-22-2010, 3:25 PM
No, SCOTUS has not given much guidance on level of scrutiny so far. But whatever they do you can bet that states like CA & NY will push the envelope with the most stringent restrictions they can get away with, eventually arriving at the most restrictive the court will tolerate. Alaska and Vermont will probably remain the most free, and the other 48 will cover the spectrum.;)l



Meaning if we do get CCW's , I see a lot of States have different laws as to when and when not to shoot....All these States laws are Brain Boggling..Then when you read about having to have an escape avenue, etc.....Where is the Line? We Have guns to defend ourselves....but have to know the split second when to use it......I'm just trying to get a good grasp on it...having a very hard time.......Man we will end up in jail for more time than the guy trying to do harm to us!!!!!!!!

hoffmang
03-22-2010, 7:40 PM
McDonald will begin the process of setting a floor for the scope of the Second Amendment. However, it will take quite a few subsequent cases to work out what the Federal minimum standards are. Most of those will be worked out here in California since California does not have a right to keep and bear arms in its state constitution and thus we can only rely on the Federal 2A.

-Gene

CSDGuy
03-22-2010, 8:43 PM
I agree with Gene. McDonald will help set that floor... and all States, Territories, and Possessions that the Constitution applies to will have to have that same "floor". So in a a sense, eventually, there will be some commonality among the states... but beyond that... there will still be differences that you'd have to be aware of.

*I'm NOT a lawyer... that's just my sense of things to be and to come.

1JimMarch
03-22-2010, 8:50 PM
One of the things that will be obvious (and per my research actually illegal NOW although there's no RKBA-specific case law yet) is that states won't be able to discriminate against incoming visitors from other states on gun-related issues.

In other words, California will have to *immediately* honor CCWs from other states, including mine (I live in Tucson AZ). That's because Cali is especially discriminatory: I can't get a Cali CCW at all, I'm barred by statute, and my AZ CCW isn't honored. So a Cali resident has at least some chance of legal carry, I have absolutely none.

I think what Cali is doing in this regard is actually already banned but it's "borderline" and a judge might not see it that way. After incorporation? No chance. Even if a state court judge ignores the case law on this (see also Ward v. Maryland 1870 and Saenz v. Roe 1999, both US Supreme Court) I'll get back to Tucson fairly soon and when I do, a visit to a federal Judge in Tucson would net a major civil court payout.

There's other examples of cross-border discrimination that vanish. CO will honor a UT permit, but not if said permit is held by a WA state resident. Yeah, don't think so guys. You can't punish a state's residents just because you don't like that state government's issuance policies for purposes of reciprocity.

Or there's WA state not wanting to honor my AZ permit because AZ will issue CCWs to persons age 18. So I'm barred from WA state carry despite being 43? Yeah...good luck with that one.

Yet another: move to NY (state) and it takes a year to get a handgun *ownership* permit, can't take your existing guns in before you get the permit? That'll fall apart in a federal court.

2Bear
03-22-2010, 9:34 PM
California will have to *immediately* honor CCWs from other states

Really? If that's the case shouldn't we just grab one of those Utah multi-state permits for $65.25 next time the gun show rolls around?

I suspect it won't be so simple merely based on the McDonald decision.

Would be happy to be wrong though.

hoffmang
03-22-2010, 11:33 PM
Forced reciprocity will take a win in Sykes first (if we don't all get it from Federal law.)

-Gene

1JimMarch
03-23-2010, 12:15 AM
Quoting:

Really? If that's the case shouldn't we just grab one of those Utah multi-state permits for $65.25 next time the gun show rolls around?

I suspect it won't be so simple merely based on the McDonald decision.

Would be happy to be wrong though.

Ward and Saenz are both about a ban on one state discriminating against residents of (in other words, visitors from) other states.

So if California tells a Cali resident that they won't honor a Cali resident's Utah permit, there's no discrimination on the basis of state citizenship.

Forced reciprocity will take a win in Sykes first (if we don't all get it from Federal law.)

Yes and no. Fr'instance, forcing AZ to honor a Cali permit might indeed take legislation and/or a win in Federal court. But not the other way around - Cali will be immediately forced to honor AZ and other permits.

Sounds crazy, right?

It's about discrimination. AZ state officials will issue CCW permits to California residents. AZ has one set of rules on how you get to carry concealed, and applies those rules fairly to both in-state and out-of-state residents.

AZ is therefore not in violation of the principle in Ward v. Maryland.

California IS.

Look, this has come up before, and sanity was promoted by the courts. A classic example is bar exams and the rules allowing a lawyer to practice law in a given state. California will let a lawyer from anywhere in the nation pass the Cali bar. Trust me, states didn't always do that - it used to be common to force any out-of-state lawyer to hire and team up with an in-state lawyer (who pays taxes in that state) who has passed that state's bar. The courts rightfully called that discrimination on the basis of state citizenship.

CCW isn't any different. In theory it's not any different *now* but in reality, the issue will be a lot clearer post-McDonald.

Stop and think: if there's a basic right to arms of any sort, do you really think Cali will be able to bar that right for out-of-state US citizens, jailing them for actions that a California resident could perform?

Hell no.

Now at this point, if you still think I'm nuts, go read Ward:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/79/418/

It's a short, simple case with issues that are easy to understand.

Here's the weird part: it's based on the idea that the PorI clause of the 14th Amendment bans cross-border discrimination of this sort. Which is probably true - it should come as no surprise that Maryland (a southern state) was trying to enforce this extra tax on out-of-staters against a dude from New Jersey.

The Slaughter-house case a couple years later supported the logic in Ward v. Maryland but then said that banning such cross-border discrimination was ALL that the 14th PorI clause was all about.

It's true that Slaughter-house is potentially on the chopping block in McDonald but even if we get a major win and Slaughter-house is overturned, that doesn't blow up Ward at all. It's extremely possible that banning cross-border discrimination was indeed one of the planned benefits of the 14th Amendment and a benefit that will remain even if the PorI clause is otherwise "supercharged" in McDonald.

Making all this even more likely is the fact that the logic in Ward was re-emphasized much more recently in Saenz:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-97.ZS.html

Again: I am not talking about forced reciprocity exactly. I'm talking about an existing ban on any state discriminating in the handling of federally recognized civil rights against residents of another state.

That case law doesn't have to be built up. It exists RIGHT FREAKIN' NOW! And because it's federally recognized civil rights in question, controlled by a part of the 14th PorI clause that's effective RIGHT NOW per Ward, in theory it's a factor right this second. Post-McDonald, the issue will be even more obvious.

hoffmang
03-23-2010, 12:23 AM
That case law doesn't have to be built up. It exists RIGHT FREAKIN' NOW! And because it's federally recognized civil rights in question, controlled by a part of the 14th PorI clause that's effective RIGHT NOW per Ward, in theory it's a factor right this second. Post-McDonald, the issue will be even more obvious.

Please quote me the federal decision applicable to California that states that California must honor out of state carry permits.

Yes it should be easy to win that next case - that would be why there is a right to travel claim in Sykes...

-Gene

Gray Peterson
03-23-2010, 12:24 AM
Jim,

All that would do is allow us to apply for a license to carry in the State of California from one of the counties. Reciprocity would flow from the fact that the California Sheriffs Associations would pitch a huge fit and ask that it be taken off their hands. Perhaps DOJ-BoF can do out of state applicants?

Read Sykes MSJ Points and Authorities memo. You'll see that there's already a right to travel claim already in there.

1JimMarch
03-23-2010, 12:26 AM
Please quote me the federal decision applicable to California that states that California must honor out of state carry permits.

Gene, I don't need to. Cross-border discrimination in the handling of civil rights has been banned, period, end of discussion.

Here's the full text of Ward:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/79/418/case.html

2Bear
03-23-2010, 12:31 AM
So if California tells a Cali resident that they won't honor a Cali resident's Utah permit, there's no discrimination on the basis of state citizenship.


So I'll need to buy a doublewide in Utah first?

1JimMarch
03-23-2010, 12:34 AM
All that would do is allow us to apply for a license to carry in the State of California from one of the counties.

Possibly, if a lawsuit was filed in civil court by an out-of-stater.

BUT - what happens if an out-of-stater with a CCW permit from their state gets busted for illegal CCW in Cali? Then there's only one question in criminal court: is this statute constitutional or not? The criminal court cannot say "well you should have applied for a Cali CCW" when PC12050 bars me on it's face from applying.

Now granted, if a CCW bust of that type came unglued like that, the legislature's rapid response would be to change the CCW system. But then they run into another problem: treatment of another state's residents is controlled federally by a whole body of case law against "arbitrary or capricious" administrative actions. Any resident of AZ subjected to Cali's current CCW process has an open invitation in Federal court.

In other words, this becomes a roundabout way to blow up the California CCW malpractice in at least some aspects even faster than Sykes could.

Sidenote: yeah, I checked into whether or not an AZ resident is really barred...in other words, PC12050 says "police chiefs" can cut me a permit, so what happens if I try to get Tucson PD to send my Cali CCW app to Sacramento? Turns out somewhere in the California gov't code that all references to "city" or "county" or whatever in California law must be read as CALIFORNIA cities/counties/etc. unless they say otherwise individually.

1JimMarch
03-23-2010, 12:36 AM
So I'll need to buy a doublewide in Utah first?

I dunno about that plan though...they'd probably try and prove you're really a Californian if it ever got as far as court. Remember, they can use cellphone tracking systems without getting a warrant first...

2Bear
03-23-2010, 12:40 AM
Remember, they can use cellphone tracking systems without getting a warrant first...

I take it this is my beloved "Patriot Act"?

I'm devising remote cellular auto-dial systems as I muse...

Arrgh. Standing by instead.

Keep up the good work guys.

socalblue
03-23-2010, 12:50 AM
Gene, I don't need to. Cross-border discrimination in the handling of civil rights has been banned, period, end of discussion.

Here's the full text of Ward:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/79/418/case.html

Ward v. Maryland is strictly a tax / interstate commerce issue & has zero relevance to RTKBA / CCW. This case has nothing to do with civil rights discrimination & Slaughterhouse (Decided post Ward) effectively killed the use of P or I for that purpose.

1JimMarch
03-23-2010, 1:12 AM
Ward v. Maryland is strictly a tax / interstate commerce issue & has zero relevance to RTKBA / CCW. This case has nothing to do with civil rights discrimination & Slaughterhouse (Decided post Ward) effectively killed the use of P or I for that purpose.

Really? You think Slaughter-house overturned Ward, and that Ward was limited to only commerce-related stuff?

Heh. Wrong on both counts.

Slaughter-house was about a state discriminating against residents of it's own state. The Slaughter-house court very narrowly drafted their decision so as to prevent anybody going into federal court to protect their rights from infringement by their own state. But rather than overturn Ward, they cited positively to it in the majority decision:

This definition of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States is adopted in the main by this court in the recent case of Ward v. The State of Maryland,[13] while it declines to undertake an authoritative definition beyond what was necessary to that decision. The description, when taken to include others not named, but which are of the same general character, embraces nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted. They are, in the language of Judge Washington, those rights which are fundamental. Throughout his opinion, they are spoken of as rights belonging to the individual as a citizen of a State. They are so spoken of in the constitutional provision which he was construing. And they have always been held to be the class of rights which the State governments were created to establish and secure.

Still think Ward was just about commerce?

Plus, the logic in Ward that the PorI clauses of both the core constitution and 14th Amendment are a bar to cross-border discrimination is supported by Slaughter-house for a very clear reason: otherwise, they would have written the 14th PorI clause right out of the constitution, which they clearly couldn't do. They had to make that be about *something*. A broad-based ban on cross-border discrimination was that "something".

One of the Slaughter-house dissenters (who had supported the Ward decision just two years earlier) went into more detail yet on what was protected in Ward:

The common privileges and immunities which of right belong to all citizens, stand on a very different footing. These the citizens of each State do carry with them into other States and are secured by the clause in question, in their enjoyment upon terms of equality with citizens of the latter States. This equality in one particular was enforced by this court in the recent case of Ward v. The State of Maryland, reported in the 12th of Wallace. A statute of that State required the payment of a larger sum from a non-resident trader for a license to enable him to sell his merchandise in the State, than it did of a resident trader, and the court held, that the statute in thus discriminating against the non-resident trader contravened the clause securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. The privilege of disposing of his property, which was an essential incident to his ownership, possessed by the non-resident, was subjected by the statute of Maryland to a greater burden than was imposed upon a like privilege of her own citizens. The privileges of the non-resident were in this particular abridged by that legislation.

Source:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12565118578780815007

So: "Socalblue", likely a cop(?), still think I'm wrong? Still ready to bust out-of-staters with their own CCW permits, esp. post-McDonald?

kf6tac
03-23-2010, 2:24 AM
Cross-border discrimination in the handling of civil rights has been banned, period, end of discussion.

Even if true, it does not automatically follow that California will have to honor out-of-state concealed carry permits because unless the majority in McDonald starts to really wander in its opinion, McDonald will not establish that concealed carry (or any carry) is a civil right. Even if they hint at it, it will be just that -- a hint. Especially if it comes down to a 5-4 split and there's any indication that Kennedy might not be on-board with an opinion that starts to opine on the right to carry (the statute being considered, after all, is a statute banning ownership, not carry). The Court will more than likely save the question of the right to bear arms for another day, which means we will need at the least a favorable decision in Sykes to jump that hurdle.

1JimMarch
03-23-2010, 3:12 AM
If discrimination against visitors from out of state is banned, how can somebody from out of state be jailed for illegal CCW when state residents do have the opportunity to escape being jailed for the same action?

Can anybody name ONE piece of cross-border discrimination along these lines in any other area of law, esp. where criminal penalties apply?

rod
03-23-2010, 6:44 AM
Another thing to consider is the pre-requisites for CCW in each state. Some states, you have to jump through several hoops to get a CCW. Other states, only a heartbeat is required. What happens if I go to CA with my heartbeat required CCW from Virginia? I don't meet the requirements for CCW in CA. If there were standard requirements for all states to meet, you'd see a bunch of people crying about their rights being trampled on for having to meet Fed requirements when their state says all they need is a heartbeat for CCW.

1JimMarch
03-23-2010, 7:32 AM
Another thing to consider is the pre-requisites for CCW in each state. Some states, you have to jump through several hoops to get a CCW. Other states, only a heartbeat is required. What happens if I go to CA with my heartbeat required CCW from Virginia? I don't meet the requirements for CCW in CA. If there were standard requirements for all states to meet, you'd see a bunch of people crying about their rights being trampled on for having to meet Fed requirements when their state says all they need is a heartbeat for CCW.

Sure. And that sort of thing may remain an issue for some time.

BUT, California can dodge the whole problem by issuing permits to out-of-staters as most states do.

If California would issue to somebody in VA, or AZ or wherever, there'd be no discrimination unless the standards were set higher. But a total ban on carry by out-of-staters?

No, THAT they won't get away with.

That means the law banning carry by people like me is unconstitutional under existing case law. Post-incorporation under McDonald, it gets even more clear. Core concept folks: we don't have to obey unconstitutional laws.

rod
03-23-2010, 7:54 AM
I see your point 1JimMarch. However, I can't imagine the good folks in California standing by quietly while they are discriminated against. How would it be fair if CA issued CCW to out-of-staters and not to it's own residents? Unless, of corse, CCW's were issued to CA residents under the same standards as out-of-staters....but which states standards? Will CA issue CCW to out-of-staters using current CA standards (may issue) and require "good cause"? That wouldn't solve anything either. I guess the only solution is to do away with permits for CCW. If a person can own a gun, they can carry it any way they want, no permit needed.

Window_Seat
03-23-2010, 10:22 AM
I would imagine that there could be one federal CCW standard with one card in the future for purposes of easier tracking through the NLETS system, no? Could be double serrated, but it would be better than having 48, since I could possibly see myself traveling through at least 40 on a regular basis in the near future.

Erik.

rod
03-23-2010, 10:52 AM
What if that federal standard said I had to register my handgun. Currently, I don't have to register any of my guns in my state. You see, someone is going to get screwed with this national CCW permit. I say do away with permits and let everyone CCW anywhere they want.

stag1500
03-23-2010, 10:53 AM
One of the things that will be obvious (and per my research actually illegal NOW although there's no RKBA-specific case law yet) is that states won't be able to discriminate against incoming visitors from other states on gun-related issues.

Does this also apply to NFA items?

Window_Seat
03-23-2010, 11:22 AM
What if that federal standard said I had to register my handgun. Currently, I don't have to register any of my guns in my state. You see, someone is going to get screwed with this national CCW permit. I say do away with permits and let everyone CCW anywhere they want.

Very understandable, there will always be abuses with these kinds of systems. When the first GC laws came about, they said "this is all we will do, we won't take yours away"... Guess what...

Now we say "give us this freedom, but we won't go after ALL GC laws", then we go after the next one. Baby steps, no?

Erik.

2Bear
03-23-2010, 11:29 AM
Core concept folks: we don't have to obey unconstitutional laws.

So what of folks refusing to pay Fed. Income Tax under the grounds that the 16th amendment was never ratified?

Seems that hasn't worked out too well for them. :o

1JimMarch
03-23-2010, 12:50 PM
The people fighting the tax situation don't have solid case law on their side. Again: read Ward v. Maryland.

Stag1500: on NFA items, it actually might. The core question is "does California favor it's own citizens versus visitors from other states?"

In terms of NFA, come to think, they actually might in one very narrow sense. Supposedly there's a pair of Hollywood prop companies that have NFA licenses. If a prop house from out-of-state wanted to rent full-autos to a moviemaker in Cali but was barred, they might have a claim. But I don't see a gap whereby "regular Joes" from, say, Nevada who own full-autos can bring NFA items into Cali because they're not going to be treated the same in the courts as the prop houses.

Another prop house might.

The difference with CCW is that "regular California citizens" can allegedly score CCW and in some counties really are issued on a shall-issue (or close to it) basis. So I as a "regular Joe" in AZ am being treated by Cali law differently than a "regular Joe" in, say, Fresno County.

That difference in treatment is illegal *now*, before McDonald even hits!

Once we get incorporation, that argument just gets a turbocharger bolted under the hood. But it exists now...because the Ward case "incorporates" the Privileges or Immunities of the 14th Amendment (and core constitution) against the states in those limited circumstances where states deliberately and systematically discriminate against out-of-staters, as California's PC12050 does.

stag1500
03-23-2010, 1:18 PM
There are also private citizens here in California who owned machine guns prior to the 1989 AWB and were grandfathered in. I believe those folks have to renew their machine gun permits every two years. Machine gun permits are definitely unobtainable by out-of-state residents.

Here's another question for you. Post-incorporation, would there be a need for the FOPA (Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986) since we have Ward v Maryland and Saenz v. Roe? The aim of my question is whether or not there's a way to get rid of the Hugh's Amendment in FOPA post-incorporation.

CSDGuy
03-23-2010, 1:54 PM
Fr'instance, forcing AZ to honor a Cali permit might indeed take legislation and/or a win in Federal court. But not the other way around - Cali will be immediately forced to honor AZ and other permits.
So basically what you're saying is that since AZ issues non-resident permits and California doesn't, California must therefore recognize all out of state permits while AZ doesn't have to recognize any out of state permits?

The problem I see is that while the 2A has been somewhat addressed at the Federal Level, Licensing and mode of carry haven't really been touched... and the 2A hasn't been applied to the States. While you have a right to travel and are covered to a degree with the FOPA, I don't yet see interstate travel while actually armed, being a protected activity just yet. Otherwise, why was the LEOSA necessary?

bridgeport
03-23-2010, 2:42 PM
So I'll need to buy a doublewide in Utah first?
Or rent a quarter of a room in an apartment, and put your sleeping bag and
a few clothes on your bit of living space.

1JimMarch
03-23-2010, 5:04 PM
Here's another question for you. Post-incorporation, would there be a need for the FOPA (Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986) since we have Ward v Maryland and Saenz v. Roe? The aim of my question is whether or not there's a way to get rid of the Hugh's Amendment in FOPA post-incorporation.

Huh. Good question. Depends on whether or not a state will be allowed to have more strict ownership limits than others post-incorporation.

So basically what you're saying is that since AZ issues non-resident permits and California doesn't, California must therefore recognize all out of state permits while AZ doesn't have to recognize any out of state permits?

I'm saying that AZ doesn't discriminate based on state of residency, California does. Therefore at least per the Ward family of case law, California's scheme of discriminating against out-of-staters is unconstitutional.

Understand, this is ON TOP of various other unconstitutional thing that may be going on, potentially in both states.

Kharn
03-23-2010, 6:22 PM
Here's another question for you. Post-incorporation, would there be a need for the FOPA (Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986) since we have Ward v Maryland and Saenz v. Roe? The aim of my question is whether or not there's a way to get rid of the Hugh's Amendment in FOPA post-incorporation.Yes, FOPA is still needed. It is the law that limits the ATF to one unannounced visit per year for FFLs and removed their ability to do a lot of dirty tricks they used to put FFLs out of business and regular gun owners behind bars. Its also the law that allows most Americans to mail-order ammo, between 68 and 86 you had to sign the dealer's log for every box of ammo purchased.

Anyone that advocates removal of the entire FOPA (or believes the FOPA is bad law) does not know the dark period that American gun owners suffered under for those 18 years. Yes, the MG ban sucks but the rest of the FOPA put a leash and a muzzle on an out-of-control ATF.
So what of folks refusing to pay Fed. Income Tax under the grounds that the 16th amendment was never ratified?

Seems that hasn't worked out too well for them. :oThat path requires you prove to the judge & jury that the law is unconstitutional.

hoffmang
03-23-2010, 8:25 PM
Jim,

I thought you were more savvy than this.

CA PC 12031 and PC 12025 remain good law - regardless of the cases that are not on point that you cite - unless and until repealed or struck down by a court. That's a different statement from whether or not they can be struck down by a court however.

-Gene

1JimMarch
03-23-2010, 11:28 PM
Gene,

If a law discriminated on the basis of, say, race, it would be and SHOULD be immediately ignored on that basis and wouldn't survive even one second in either civil or criminal court. Everybody knows that.

What most people don't know is that discrimination by a state against residents of other states is just as flat-out banned, and with just as solid a case law history behind that ban by the federal courts against that class of state-level discrimination.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-24-2010, 7:38 AM
What if that federal standard said I had to register my handgun. Currently, I don't have to register any of my guns in my state. You see, someone is going to get screwed with this national CCW permit. I say do away with permits and let everyone CCW anywhere they want.


If SCOTUS goes with established precedents & restores unrestricted LOC, I don't see why you couldn't Carry with an unregistered gun. But, Heller was pretty clear that restrictions on CCW are gonna fly.


The Raisuli

yellowfin
03-24-2010, 8:49 AM
Gene,

If a law discriminated on the basis of, say, race, it would be and SHOULD be immediately ignored on that basis and wouldn't survive even one second in either civil or criminal court. Everybody knows that.

What most people don't know is that discrimination by a state against residents of other states is just as flat-out banned, and with just as solid a case law history behind that ban by the federal courts against that class of state-level discrimination.
New York is a much more deserving target of such a suit. At least in California you can possess a pistol if you're a non resident, but not NY. NYC even outlaws pistol possession by people from NYS while in NYC except with a permit that you can't get. This is for possession even in a locked trunk not just carry. You guys need to target NY/NYC first as it's the next worst ban to Chicago and DC.

1JimMarch
03-24-2010, 4:29 PM
According to http://handgunlaw.us

New York will issue to non-Residents but you must have a very good reason. Most say you must have
business concerns in the county etc etc. New York is a may issue state but some counties are almost shall
issue. It depends on the county. Some counties make it impossible for the average citizen to obtain a permit
to carry concealed. Do be warned that you must have very compelling reasons to even be considered.

If you do apply you would follow the same procedures as a resident. (See Resident Permit Section)

So by statute, it's *possible* to score a New York state handgun permit (where "permit" can be either "ownership only" or "ownership and carry").

In practice there's severe discrimination going on, which I can full well believe.

But this still leaves Cali as the top target. The discrimination is universal and hardcoded into PC12050: I as an AZ resident cannot score a California CCW, period, end of discussion.

hoffmang
03-24-2010, 4:38 PM
What most people don't know is that discrimination by a state against residents of other states is just as flat-out banned, and with just as solid a case law history behind that ban by the federal courts against that class of state-level discrimination.

However, you still have to file and win a case.

-Gene

yellowfin
03-24-2010, 6:52 PM
So by statute, it's *possible* to score a New York state handgun permit (where "permit" can be either "ownership only" or "ownership and carry").

In practice there's severe discrimination going on, which I can full well believe.

But this still leaves Cali as the top target. The discrimination is universal and hardcoded into PC12050: I as an AZ resident cannot score a California CCW, period, end of discussion.Now here's ya a question. Which gets more daily back and forth traffic between residents for business and other regular commutes: A] NV, OR and AZ to CA, or B] PA and VA to MD, C] PA and NY to NJ or D] PA and OH to NY?

1JimMarch
03-24-2010, 7:41 PM
However, you still have to file and win a case.

Gene,

Are you telling me that if San Francisco passed an ordinance barring, say, blacks from Golden Gate Park, it would be a mistake for any black to enter the park?

Seriously?

Or would it be an opportunity to take them to the cleaners in civil court once the criminal court case collapses?

The case law is equally strong either way...discrimination on the basis of race OR "state origin". The only reason the latter isn't as well known is that discrimination of that sort historically hasn't been very common - but there are now TWO federal supreme court cases on that point so its a fully settled area of law.

hoffmang
03-24-2010, 9:13 PM
Gene,

Are you telling me that if San Francisco passed an ordinance barring, say, blacks from Golden Gate Park, it would be a mistake for any black to enter the park?

Seriously?


You of all people should know that black people are a protected class in a way gun owners are not. There are quite a few on point federal cases about banning black people from certain public accommodations. There are about 0 decided federal cases about CCW reciprocity.

You have two and only two choices - criminal case or civil case. Creating a criminal case by carrying into CA on an AZ permit is not giving you the best chances of winning the case.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
03-24-2010, 9:20 PM
Gene,

Are you telling me that if San Francisco passed an ordinance barring, say, blacks from Golden Gate Park, it would be a mistake for any black to enter the park?

Seriously?

Or would it be an opportunity to take them to the cleaners in civil court once the criminal court case collapses?

The case law is equally strong either way...discrimination on the basis of race OR "state origin". The only reason the latter isn't as well known is that discrimination of that sort historically hasn't been very common - but there are now TWO federal supreme court cases on that point so its a fully settled area of law.

Neither of which are directly on point and applicable to gun issues. The throughly LCAV infested state criminal courts system is NOT the place to deal with these issues. Deal with it civilly in federal court, and you won't be doing time in San Quentin as a risk.

stag1500
03-24-2010, 10:11 PM
You of all people should know that black people are a protected class in a way gun owners are not.

Wouldn't gun owners be a protected class post-incorporation?

kf6tac
03-24-2010, 10:21 PM
Wouldn't gun owners be a protected class post-incorporation?

Gun owners, yes - in the sense that exercise of fundamental rights is treated the same under equal protection jurisprudence as protected classes, though they're not truly one and the same. Concealed carriers of guns, however, will not necessarily be a protected class, because McDonald only addresses a state ban on ownership. In all likelihood, McDonald will not tell us whether concealed carry is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has traditionally only applied the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause in cases where states are discriminating between residents and non-residents in the exercise of fundamental rights or important economic activities. In the absence of an actual court ruling stating that concealed carry is a fundamental right, we won't have the necessary pieces to build a bridge to the Article IV Privilege and Immunities argument.

bigcalidave
03-24-2010, 10:29 PM
Not to mention that it would take FOREVER for someone to get caught carrying concealed, not committing another crime, on an AZ license. So who knows when the case law would be established! Pending cases have the best option for fixing the problem.

stag1500
03-24-2010, 10:48 PM
Concealed carriers of guns, however, will not necessarily be a protected class, because McDonald only addresses a state ban on ownership.

O.k. Then bearers of arms should be a protected class post-Palmer and post-Sykes.

kf6tac
03-24-2010, 10:51 PM
O.k. Then bearers of arms should be a protected class post-Palmer and post-Sykes.

Yep. Which is why Gene said a few pages ago that it would require a win in Sykes.

hoffmang
03-26-2010, 11:52 PM
O.k. Then bearers of arms should be a protected class post-Palmer and post-Sykes.

"protected class" is a legal term of art. It generally applies to minorities that have been specifically recognized by the court. The point you're thinking through is correct but the analogy is to people exercising the freedom of speech. You can be a white male who has never been discriminated against and thus not be in a "protected class" but sue and win because your freedom of speech was violated.

Soon that will be the case with the full scope of the Second Amendment through the 14th...

-Gene