PDA

View Full Version : David Kopel files Amicus -- Peruta vs. San Diego


Funtimes
11-01-2010, 1:46 AM
From over at the volokh conspiracy -- David Kopel and Professor John Eastman filed a amicus brief in Peruta vs. San Diego.

Volokh Conspiracy Blog (http://volokh.com/2010/10/30/amicus-brief-in-calif-concealed-carry-case/)


The Amicus Brief in Support of PLaintiffs MSJ (http://davekopel.org/Briefs/Peruta-v-San-Diego-Amicus-Brief.pdf)

sighere
11-01-2010, 10:32 AM
Definitely worth reading. Puts the good cause well into perspective of a fundamental right while shattering the opposition's insistence that they just want "reasonableness" in regulating a fundamental right.

N6ATF
11-01-2010, 10:38 AM
Ha, read this on the docket already.

Purple K
11-01-2010, 10:42 AM
Yes! Well worth the time to read.

PatriotnMore
11-01-2010, 10:45 AM
Definitely worth reading. Puts the good cause well into perspective of a fundamental right while shattering the opposition's insistence that they just want "reasonableness" in regulating a fundamental right.

Or more to the point, to make reasonable, unreasonable, and accessible so limited, it becomes inaccessible.

J.D.Allen
11-01-2010, 10:53 AM
Only read the first few lines of the argument and I already think it's one of the best 2A pieces I've read.

Finally! Someone who understands that this is a right that does not come from or depend on the legislature, the AG, OR the f***king Governor, but from the constituion. The U.S. Constitution.

Amen Brotha!!

Rossi357
11-01-2010, 11:06 AM
I would rather have some bad guys with CCW's than only a select few having them.

Flopper
11-01-2010, 11:19 AM
Only read the first few lines of the argument and I already think it's one of the best 2A pieces I've read.

Finally! Someone who understands that this is a right that does not come from or depend on the legislature, the AG, OR the f***king Governor, but from the constituion. The U.S. Constitution.

Amen Brotha!!

I hate to be a nitpicker, but it does not come from the Constitution.

We have it merely by existing as humans.

racerguy180
11-01-2010, 11:27 AM
I hate to be a nitpicker, but it does not come from the Constitution.

We have it merely by existing as humans.

Word!!!

If it is already on the dockett, California may soon be a safer place!!!

Untamed1972
11-01-2010, 11:28 AM
FANTASTIC!!!

Hope Gore is bringing a chute cuz he's goin' down in flames!

Purple K
11-01-2010, 11:32 AM
I hate to be a nitpicker, but it does not come from the Constitution.

We have it merely by existing as humans.

Yes! Too often People forget that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are not rights guaranteed to us by our Government. They are in fact granted to us by our Creator, whichever one you beleive in. It specifically states that the Government can not take those rights from us.

J.D.Allen
11-01-2010, 11:46 AM
I hate to be a nitpicker, but it does not come from the Constitution.

We have it merely by existing as humans.

Ah yes, I stand corrected. :oops:Forgive me. What I meant to say was that it is a natural right that is affirmed by the U.S. constituion.

Good catch.:cheers2:

Shiboleth
11-01-2010, 1:15 PM
That's a good read. I have a clarifying question though. The brief states

Heller expressly rejects defendants' theory that the second amendment applies only to the home

I know the arguments that Heller implicitly supports RKBA outside the home, via the sensitive places argument and the "most notably" phrasing, but i'm unaware of anywhere there is an explicit statement of 2A application outside the home. Am i missing something, or am i just using explicitly and expressly too interchangeably?

Crom
11-01-2010, 1:34 PM
That's a good read. I have a clarifying question though. The brief states

Heller expressly rejects defendants' theory that the second amendment applies only to the home I know the arguments that Heller implicitly supports RKBA outside the home, via the sensitive places argument and the "most notably" phrasing, but i'm unaware of anywhere there is an explicit statement of 2A application outside the home. Am i missing something, or am i just using explicitly and expressly too interchangeably?

If you're refereing to Heller I think this section fits nicely:


At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to“carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaningthat refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)

-Page 10 of the Heller Opinion (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)

Shiboleth
11-01-2010, 1:56 PM
If you're refereing to Heller I think this section fits nicely:



-Page 10 of the Heller Opinion (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)

Again i think the idea that carry outside the home is, in the text you quoted, implicit, or at least it can be argued as such. I agree with the idea of course, i'm just curious due to the phrasing in the amicus brief if there is a more explicit statement that i'm unaware of.

PsychGuy274
11-01-2010, 2:01 PM
That was an amazing read! I hope I can make the orals!

dantodd
11-01-2010, 2:27 PM
Again i think the idea that carry outside the home is, in the text you quoted, implicit, or at least it can be argued as such. I agree with the idea of course, i'm just curious due to the phrasing in the amicus brief if there is a more explicit statement that i'm unaware of.

It all seems rather clear to me but perhaps these quotes will help:


On Keep:

Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”


On Bear:
“[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”


“the right of bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was intended in the discussion.


Defining the right:
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.


This should make it very clear that "keep and bear" as used in the Second Amendment means to have guns and to carry them with you in case of offensive or defensive action with others.


We now know, from the discussion above WHAT the right described by the Second Amendment IS. but, is it limited strictly to the home as some have suggested?

Well, the first hint that it is not solely for the home would be the fact that bearing arms in the home is specifically a subset of the right to bear arms. You can see this right on the first page of the syllabus:


1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


Clearly, "such as self-defense within the home" is a subset of the overall right which is to "use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes."



Finally the court lists a number of laws that it feels were rightly struck down. All of those laws were carry laws that forbade people from carrying in public, not restricted to the home, and they were directly compared with the kind of restrictions the law at question in Heller imposed.


Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close tothe severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at
251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time orplace, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns.

If the right defined in Heller was limited to the home the above cases would have no place in the courts analysis.

BlindRacer
11-01-2010, 2:34 PM
Great read, but there was one thing that I think could have been made clearer.

I've always heard the comparison of the 1st to the 2nd amendments. This brief laid out a pretty good comparison, but I think one more thing could have been said.

You always here the specifics of someone shouting fire in a crowded theater. Yes, not a good idea, and it should be restricted to when there's only a fire. But, they compare this, to the restrictions on carrying firearms.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The appropriate comparison would be more along the lines of where you can shoot a firearm, and for what purpose. If it's directly about carry in this comparison, then it would be closer to someone carrying a bull horn. Then the right to carry that bull horn would be restricted, because of the potential of shouting fire in a theater.

Anyways, rant over. I think the brief was great.

Shiboleth
11-01-2010, 2:51 PM
@ Dantodd...
You're preaching to the choir, i agree that the clear implications and the only logical conclusions throughout multiple different areas of the Heller opinion are that the right is protected outside the home. However none of those areas explicitly state it as such, that i know of, as it can be argued that weapons can be carried for confrontation in the home. Stupid, i know.

My question was if there was some part of the opinion that i was unaware of that made a more "explicit" statement, as the above amicus seems to suggest if "expressly rejected" was considered synonymous with "explicitly rejected".

If it was indeed explicitly rejected, we would not have the Brady Bunch and their ilk running around claiming the 2A solely applies to the home.

Maybe i'm simply misreading the intent of the wording in the amicus, that's always possible.

Untamed1972
11-01-2010, 2:59 PM
@ Dantodd...
You're preaching to the choir, i agree that the clear implications and the only logical conclusions throughout multiple different areas of the Heller opinion are that the right is protected outside the home. However none of those areas explicitly state it as such, that i know of, as it can be argued that weapons can be carried for confrontation in the home. Stupid, i know.

My question was if there was some part of the opinion that i was unaware of that made a more "explicit" statement, as the above amicus seems to suggest if "expressly rejected" was considered synonymous with "explicitly rejected".

If it was indeed explicitly rejected, we would not have the Brady Bunch and their ilk running around claiming the 2A solely applies to the home.

Maybe i'm simply misreading the intent of the wording in the amicus, that's always possible.

I dont think you will find an "explicit statement" of such in Heller because Heller was a case about challenging a law regarding keeping of arms in the home. But the "language" of the decision clearly points to the fact that carry outside the home is protected and may only be subject to narrowly tailored manner/place restrictions.

Brady and their ilk run around claiming "only in the home" because they have an agenda to try and support, but absolutely NO WHERE in heller is the phrase "only in the home" ever used. So when Brady and others say that Heller is says "only in the home" they are flat out lying.

Crom
11-01-2010, 3:00 PM
Again i think the idea that carry outside the home is, in the text you quoted, implicit, or at least it can be argued as such. I agree with the idea of course, i'm just curious due to the phrasing in the amicus brief if there is a more explicit statement that i'm unaware of.

I think I agree that it's implicit. But soon, these right-to-carry cases will move forward through the courts and we'll have the explicit case law that we need to compel the remaining anti's. :43:


Maryland (4th Circuit), Woolard v. Sheridan (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Woolard_v._Sheridan)
Washington D.C. (Federal), Palmer v. District of Columbia (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Palmer_v._District_of_Columbia)
California (9th Circuit), Sykes v. McGinness (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness) & Peruta v. County of San Diego (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peruta_v._County_of_San_Diego)
New York (2nd Circuit), Kachalsky v. Cacace (http://archive.recapthelaw.org/nysd/365487/)
Illinois (7th Circuit), Mishaga v. Monken (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Mishaga_v._Monken)
Colorado (10th Circuit), Peterson v. LaCabe (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peterson_v._LaCabe)

dantodd
11-01-2010, 3:58 PM
@ Dantodd...
You're preaching to the choir, i agree that the clear implications and the only logical conclusions throughout multiple different areas of the Heller opinion are that the right is protected outside the home. However none of those areas explicitly state it as such, that i know of, as it can be argued that weapons can be carried for confrontation in the home. Stupid, i know.

My question was if there was some part of the opinion that i was unaware of that made a more "explicit" statement, as the above amicus seems to suggest if "expressly rejected" was considered synonymous with "explicitly rejected".

If it was indeed explicitly rejected, we would not have the Brady Bunch and their ilk running around claiming the 2A solely applies to the home.

Maybe i'm simply misreading the intent of the wording in the amicus, that's always possible.

defining "in the home" as a subset is explicit.

Al Norris
11-01-2010, 6:18 PM
You can see this right on the first page of the syllabus:

Just a nitpick. Never, ever quote from the syllabus. The syllabus is not law. It is not citable in a court. It is written by one of the clerks (who knows which one). From the caption:
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

You will note that after the part you quoted, there was a set of page numbers - Pg 2-57 to be exact. So that first part was someones encapsulation of pages 2 thru 57. In one sentence, no less!

Let's not confuse people with using something that was grabbed from the whole cloth.

NB: Read Alan Guras Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.80.0.pdf) in Ezell v. Chicago, starting at page 4, thru page 6. He makes excellent use of Heller's "dicta" in making the case for carry outside the home.

AAR, carry outside the home is as yet, entirely implicit within the dicta of Heller and McDonald. The cases that Crom highlighted, above, is where it will become explicit.

As to answering the anti's meme about carrying only in the home? The Heller case was explicitly about that and only that. So of course the Court was only going to answer the question it was asked. Just like in the McDonald case, the Court never explicitly invalidated the Chicago gun laws, because it was never the question that was asked.

hoffmang
11-01-2010, 7:56 PM
Al,

Also recall that the law of this case is that the right to carry outside the home is explicitly subject to intermediate or strict scrutiny per the denial of the motion to dismiss...

-Gene

press1280
11-02-2010, 3:09 AM
The Kopel brief references that discretionary CCW issuance is invalid because open carry is basically prohibited throughout the state(I guess except unincorporated areas?).
I'm guessing San Diego is not going to try to point to unloaded open carry as a valid alternative to CCW?

wildhawker
11-02-2010, 3:23 AM
The Kopel brief references that discretionary CCW issuance is invalid because open carry is basically prohibited throughout the state(I guess except unincorporated areas?).
I'm guessing San Diego is not going to try to point to unloaded open carry as a valid alternative to CCW?

Unloaded open carry does not implicate the "bearing" of a functional firearm.

Munk
11-02-2010, 3:54 AM
Unloaded open carry does not implicate the "bearing" of a functional firearm.

"A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to the destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional." -State V. Reid

From the brief.
:p

Edit:... So if this runs its way all the way up to the SCOTUS, that means "lawful self defense" will be the rubber stamp that all law abiding californians use to get their CCW? (although i'd wager that the county by county strategy will outpace the appeals process to get to SCOTUS).

Combine the quote from State v reid, with the fact that openly carrying a loaded firearm is (mostly) a no-go, and the idea that self defense in an emergency situation would mean that some method of carry must be made legal.... and you have a recipe for a case to follow all of the CCW issuance cases, either for a near-instant carry license, or for carry without a license (open or concealed, as determined by the interests of the state).

Every time I read the related cases for the case at hand, I get a feeling that we have a solid basis for attacking every peice of the anti's legislation that has been passed. That and those silly things like the 2nd, 4th, and 14th amendments.

Edward Peruta
11-02-2010, 4:43 AM
The County attempts to do exactly this, without consideration to the tactical harrassment by law enforcement when they approach to do a 12031 check with drawn weapons.
I've posted the newly filed documents on my webpage at www.cagunrights.com


The Kopel brief references that discretionary CCW issuance is invalid because open carry is basically prohibited throughout the state(I guess except unincorporated areas?).
I'm guessing San Diego is not going to try to point to unloaded open carry as a valid alternative to CCW?

Mulay El Raisuli
11-02-2010, 5:54 AM
The Kopel brief references that discretionary CCW issuance is invalid because open carry is basically prohibited throughout the state(I guess except unincorporated areas?).
I'm guessing San Diego is not going to try to point to unloaded open carry as a valid alternative to CCW?


Because the "U" in UOC means UNloaded, it simply cannot meet any kind of standard for "and bear." But, the Liberals in Sac'to might legalize LOC. Part of the reason I think this is that I am cursed with having a brother who is a complete kneejerk Liberal. He never comes up with arguments on his own. He simply regurgitates whatever the party line is. This makes him useful because he's a 'barometer' for telling me what the Liberals are are up to, or about to be up to.

Recently, he came up with something new. Now his claim is that allowing people to carry "secretly" (note, not concealed) is stupid & dangerous, but that carrying openly is the proper way to go (because the "danger" can now be seen). He also argues that a permit should be required, because we can't allow just anybody to carry (of course!), but LOC seems to be what the Liberals will be pushing next.

This leaves me somewhat conflicted. I think everybody here knows what a fanatic I am for LOC. That I firmly & absolutely believe that LOC is THE Minimum Constitutional Standard. OTOH, being on the same side of any part of the issue as the Liberals does give me pause.

Not seeing a completely clear path on this, I will merely present the facts & let wiser heads figure out the implications.


The Raisuli

Untamed1972
11-02-2010, 8:10 AM
Because the "U" in UOC means UNloaded, it simply cannot meet any kind of standard for "and bear." But, the Liberals in Sac'to might legalize LOC. Part of the reason I think this is that I am cursed with having a brother who is a complete kneejerk Liberal. He never comes up with arguments on his own. He simply regurgitates whatever the party line is. This makes him useful because he's a 'barometer' for telling me what the Liberals are are up to, or about to be up to.

Recently, he came up with something new. Now his claim is that allowing people to carry "secretly" (note, not concealed) is stupid & dangerous, but that carrying openly is the proper way to go (because the "danger" can now be seen). He also argues that a permit should be required, because we can't allow just anybody to carry (of course!), but LOC seems to be what the Liberals will be pushing next.

This leaves me somewhat conflicted. I think everybody here knows what a fanatic I am for LOC. That I firmly & absolutely believe that LOC is THE Minimum Constitutional Standard. OTOH, being on the same side of any part of the issue as the Liberals does give me pause.

Not seeing a completely clear path on this, I will merely present the facts & let wiser heads figure out the implications.


The Raisuli

Any LOC legislation better have some direction to LE in it stating that presence/sight of an openly carried firearm alone is not justification for LE contact or detainment.

N6ATF
11-02-2010, 10:26 AM
Come on... this is CA, they'll practically beg LE to harass the hell out of all LOCers just like Wisconsin and the disorderly conduct false arrests.

Munk
11-02-2010, 3:43 PM
Come on... this is CA, they'll practically beg LE to harass the hell out of all LOCers just like Wisconsin and the disorderly conduct false arrests.

and with the CGF around we'll all have a nice juicy class-action to levy against a number of law enforcement organziations when these disorderly conduct cases become more rampant.

I know i'd have no problem getting myself a disordly conduct charge for sitting down to enjoy a coffee and reading a book.

J.D.Allen
11-02-2010, 3:54 PM
and with the CGF around we'll all have a nice juicy class-action to levy against a number of law enforcement organziations when these disorderly conduct cases become more rampant.

I know i'd have no problem getting myself a disordly conduct charge for sitting down to enjoy a coffee and reading a book.

Me either. I've had more than one cup of coffee with a perfectly FUNCTIONAL firearm on my hip...let's get to it. :D

Crom
11-02-2010, 4:50 PM
Because the "U" in UOC means UNloaded, it simply cannot meet any kind of standard for "and bear." But, the Liberals in Sac'to might legalize LOC. Part of the reason I think this is that I am cursed with having a brother who is a complete kneejerk Liberal. He never comes up with arguments on his own. He simply regurgitates whatever the party line is. This makes him useful because he's a 'barometer' for telling me what the Liberals are are up to, or about to be up to.

Recently, he came up with something new. Now his claim is that allowing people to carry "secretly" (note, not concealed) is stupid & dangerous, but that carrying openly is the proper way to go (because the "danger" can now be seen). He also argues that a permit should be required, because we can't allow just anybody to carry (of course!), but LOC seems to be what the Liberals will be pushing next.

This leaves me somewhat conflicted. I think everybody here knows what a fanatic I am for LOC. That I firmly & absolutely believe that LOC is THE Minimum Constitutional Standard. OTOH, being on the same side of any part of the issue as the Liberals does give me pause.

Not seeing a completely clear path on this, I will merely present the facts & let wiser heads figure out the implications.


The Raisuli

LOC would be great and I agree that it would be the minimum... However, one of the big problems with LOC is the school zones. How to exercise a fundamental right with the constraints of the unreasonable 1000' GFSZ's?

It seems plain to me that if we did have LOC, we would immediately challenge the GFSZ. CCW is of course exempt from the GFSZ's and that is why I think CCW is so much more valuable to the average citizen.

In Peruta I have high hopes for a ruling in which the court finds "good cause" as an infringement on our rights. I look to the motion to dismiss for hope.Plaintiff’s challenge to the requirements of Section 12050 as applied by Defendants also survives the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff alleges that he satisfies the “good cause” requirement because he needs to carry a gun for self-defense, seeing as he is sixty years old and travels to high crime areas for his job. (Pl. Opp., at 5-7.) Plaintiff also alleges that he satisfies the “residency” requirement because he resides in San Diego at least four months out of the year, even though he does so in a motor home. (Id. at 8-10.) Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, Defendants’ application of Section 12050's requirements appears to infringe upon Plaintiff’s right to “possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”--January 14, 2010 - Motion to dismiss DENIED (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.7.0.pdf) by Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez

Gray Peterson
11-02-2010, 5:37 PM
Can someone RECAP the Peruta case please?

Kharn
11-02-2010, 5:38 PM
I can't wait for Kopel to change a few names and refile this amicus in Woollard. Talk about a beating for the non-issue crowd...

Gray Peterson
11-02-2010, 5:42 PM
I think I agree that it's implicit. But soon, these right-to-carry cases will move forward through the courts and we'll have the explicit case law that we need to compel the remaining anti's. :43:


Maryland (4th Circuit), Woolard v. Sheridan (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Woolard_v._Sheridan)
Washington D.C. (Federal), Palmer v. District of Columbia (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Palmer_v._District_of_Columbia)
California (9th Circuit), Sykes v. McGinness (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness) & Peruta v. County of San Diego (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peruta_v._County_of_San_Diego)
New York (2nd Circuit), Kachalsky v. Cacace (http://archive.recapthelaw.org/nysd/365487/)
Illinois (7th Circuit), Mishaga v. Monken (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Mishaga_v._Monken)
Colorado (10th Circuit), Peterson v. LaCabe (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peterson_v._LaCabe)


Sorry to be a stickler, but it's Richards v. Prieto rather than Sykes v. McGinness.

N6ATF
11-02-2010, 5:57 PM
Can someone RECAP the Peruta case please?

http://ia341314.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.docket.html

Mulay El Raisuli
11-03-2010, 5:27 AM
LOC would be great and I agree that it would be the minimum... However, one of the big problems with LOC is the school zones. How to exercise a fundamental right with the constraints of the unreasonable 1000' GFSZ's?

It seems plain to me that if we did have LOC, we would immediately challenge the GFSZ. CCW is of course exempt from the GFSZ's and that is why I think CCW is so much more valuable to the average citizen.




The effort from the Liberals seems to be LOC with a license. That being the case, my guess is that they'll keep the GFSZ (for the children!) but that the license will give immunity just as is the case now with CCW.

As for how LEAs will handle the sight of Open Carriers, I suspect that the harassment factor won't be all that bad. The last couple of years of UOC have smoothed the path at least a little bit.


The Raisuli

N6ATF
11-03-2010, 9:15 AM
At least with UOC there's no infringement permit they can demand to see... only the loaded check is authorized by law, everything else are elements of a false arrest (euphemistically referred to as a detention).

NightOwl
11-03-2010, 10:35 AM
I'm not sure that OC with a license would stand up, considering the number of states that don't require a license. Would be a hard sell that it serves a narrowly tailored governmental interest...that many states don't require a license for already.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-04-2010, 5:18 AM
I'm not sure that OC with a license would stand up, considering the number of states that don't require a license. Would be a hard sell that it serves a narrowly tailored governmental interest...that many states don't require a license for already.


I agree. That doesn't mean that those people won't try for it anyway.


The Raisuli

Purple K
11-09-2010, 2:03 AM
Only 7-days to go.....

voiceofreason
11-09-2010, 8:12 PM
...

voiceofreason
11-09-2010, 8:13 PM
LOC beats UOC any day.

However, many people do not want to OC, loaded or not. Assuming that LOC is acceptable in school zones like CA CCWs, many parents do not want to deal with the issues that will inevitably erupt from the other parents that will likely discriminate against people that wish to carry firearms.

Carrying concealed takes care of that issue nicely. LOC is necessary even if CCW is shall issue, if only for those occasions when a concealing garment isn't doing what it's supposed to do. And many people prefer LOC as their method of carry.