PDA

View Full Version : Peruta v. San Diego: Three More Amici Briefs Filed


Pages : [1] 2

sbrady@Michel&Associates
06-01-2011, 1:48 PM
On Monday, May 23, 2011, the CRPA Foundation and a number of San Diego residents had attorneys from Michel & Associates, PC file their opening brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in their appeal seeking to overturn a U.S. District Court ruling from December 10, 2010 that upheld San Diego Sheriff William Gore’s restrictive and unfair policies in issuing permits to carry concealed firearms. The case is Peruta v. County of San Diego.

On May 31, 2011, three more amicus curiae friend-of-the-court briefs were filed in Peruta.

Amici curiae Center of Constitutional Jurisprudence (CCJ), Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, represented by constitutional law scholar and former Dean & Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University, School of Law, Dr. John Eastman. CCJ’s brief (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Amicus-Brief-of-Center-for-Constitutional-Jurisprudence.pdf) deals with the long-standing historical recognition of the right to carry loaded firearms for self-defense from state courts and acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Heller.

Renowned civil rights activist and attorney Don B. Kates filed an amicus brief (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/DBK-Amicus-Brief-Filed.pdf) on behalf of Gun Owners of California and Senator H. L. Richardson, discussing the history of California’s firearms laws regulating concealed and loaded carry, and how its leaving lawful the open carry of unloaded firearms was a loophole, never intended as a means of self-defense carry as the lower court concluded. It also addresses the trend of liberal CCW issuance from a criminological perspective.

Alan Gura authored an amicus brief (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Amicus-Brief-of-Second-Amendment-Foundation-and-Calguns-Foundation.pdf) generally in support of Plaintiffs on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation, Calguns Foundation and two individuals weighing in with their view of the proper standard of review in this case.

Under California law, a permit to carry a concealed firearm (CCW) should be issued if an applicant has “good cause.” The Peruta lawsuit asserts that under the Second Amendment, a desire to have a CCW for self-defense must constitute “good cause.” The lawsuit challenges San Diego’s requirement that an applicant demonstrate some special need or a specific threat in order to get a CCW as an unconstitutional restriction on the fundamental right to carry a firearm ready to be used for self-defense.

The District Court held that people do not need a CCW to "bear arms"-at least not loaded arms-for self-defense purposes. The court found that, "as a practical matter," California allows you to carry an unloaded handgun openly in a holster (Penal Code Section 12025(f)) and, if attacked, you can simply load it to defend yourself (Cal. Pen. Code section 12031(j)). But as the legal briefs filed on appeal point out, and as the ILEETA videos clearly show, there is nothing "practical" about the court's finding. In addition to the various legal restrictions on openly carrying an unloaded firearm, which require one to be in “immediate and grave danger” before a gun can be loaded, the time needed to load it makes it useless in a self-defense emergency. In short, unloaded open carry does not allow for effective self-defense, nor is it an effective way to exercise your fundamental right to be ready and able to defend yourself under the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs are asking the Ninth Circuit to overrule the district court's decision.(See opening appellate brief here (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-Opening-Brief.pdf)).

The three briefs filed yesterday are the latest in a series of amicus briefs that have been filed in the case so far. On May 30, 2011, the prestigious International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA) and the Independence Institute joined in the Peruta appeal, filing an amicus curiae brief in support of neither party. ILEETA’s brief (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ILEETA-Amicus-Brief.pdf) points out the inadequacies of unloaded open carry (“UOC”) as a self-defense strategy. The brief references some compelling videos, specifically made by ILEETA, that show under various situations why UOC is inadequate as a way to defend oneself. (See the videos here (http://michellawyers.com/videos-referenced-in-ileeta-amicus-brief-in-peruta-v-san-diego-appeal)) The brief was authored by legal scholar and prolific writer, Professor David Kopel.

On May 27, 2011, the National Rifle Association weighed in with an amicus brief authored by former Solicitor General and renowned constitutional litigator Paul Clement. The NRA's brief reiterates the position NRA took in a previous amicus brief filed with the Ninth Circuit in the Nordyke v. King case, that infringements on the right to bear arms, must be reviewed under a strict scrutiny standard. The brief continues though, arguing that even if the "substantial burden" test, ultimately adopted by the Ninth Circuit in the Nordyke case is the proper test for reviewing Second Amendment infringements, San Diego County's CCW issuance policy still fails. (See NRA's amicus brief here (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Peruta_NRA_s-Amicus-Brief-ISO-Appellants_Reversal.pdf)).

Before that, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) filed an amicus brief on May 25, 2011, authored by Second Amendment scholar and author of "The Framer's Second Amendment," Stephen P. Halbrook. The CORE brief emphasized how the right to “bear arms” does not stop at one’s doorstep, and gave a historical analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment, discussing how discretionary firearms licensing laws were an incident of slavery. (See CORE’s amicus brief here (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta_NRAs-Amicus-Brief-ISO-Appellants_Reversal.pdf))

The deadline to file amicus briefs in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants or in support of neither party was 11:59 PM yesterday, so yesterday’s briefs are the last amici briefs to be filed for now. Another round of amici briefs is expected after Gore and San Diego County file their Answering Brief on July 22, 2011. To be kept up to date on these filings, subscribe to our alerts at http://michellawyers.com/subscribe.

The plaintiffs in the Peruta case include several individuals who were either denied CCWs or do not qualify under the Sheriff’s strict issuance standards, as well as the CRPA Foundation. Copies of the court filings in the lawsuit and appeal can be viewed at http://michellawyers.com/perutavsandiego.

The lawsuit and appeal are being funded by the NRA-CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP). To fight for the self-defense civil rights of all Californians, the NRA and CRPA Foundation have joined forces. Through LAP, NRA/CRPAF attorneys fight ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, educate state and local officials about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and produce valid science about game and wildlife resource management.

To contribute to the NRA/CRPAF Legal Action Project (LAP) and support this and similar efforts and Second Amendment litigation in California, visit www.crpafoundation.org (http://www.crpafoundation.org) and www.nraila.org (http://www.nraila.org).
__________________

Purple K
06-01-2011, 1:54 PM
This is getting good

IrishPirate
06-01-2011, 1:56 PM
sweet, can't wait to hear what happens..........in TWO WEEKS!!!

247Nino
06-01-2011, 2:10 PM
Hmmm

Southwest Chuck
06-01-2011, 2:32 PM
Just read the Amici curiae Center of Constitutional Jurisprudence (CCJ). I love the added attack on the licensing of a fundamental right and the cited court cases that support the idea that licensing of such a right is unconstitutional.

stix213
06-01-2011, 3:14 PM
ILEETA's brief drives home the idea that UOC is insufficient, and dangerous to the victim and possibly the public at large, pretty well.

otteray
06-01-2011, 6:26 PM
Don B. Kates' brief was really easy to understand for a regular non-law guy (like me. :)) Please, take the time to read it and end your confusion!
A brief perspective of our gun laws and how they evolved into unwieldy restrictions; and evidence of the corrupt CCW issuance practices in this state.
Ray

Foulball
06-01-2011, 7:50 PM
Holy Crap this is shooting right past interesting and heading towards awesomeness!!!

HowardW56
06-01-2011, 8:53 PM
Holy Crap this is shooting right past interesting and heading towards awesomeness!!!


Towards.?.?.?.?

There are some fine examples of legal writing, each with their own angle on the issue...

OleCuss
06-01-2011, 9:15 PM
And I'd thought DRGO was a defunct organization? I'd not seen evidence of activity in years. . . Actually stopped looking for activity because it looked so dead.

And congratulations to GOC for hiring a good lawyer. Not a big fan of their operations in general, but my estimation just went up a notch.

G60
06-01-2011, 9:20 PM
Pleased Don Kates' brief explained the GFSZ clusterf*ck.

Zak
06-01-2011, 10:39 PM
Pleased Don Kates' brief explained the GFSZ clusterf*ck.

His brief was very well written. I especially loved the GFSZ map he provided:

http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2337

:rolleyes:

stitchnicklas
06-01-2011, 10:51 PM
:gura: makes the anti's cry and pee them selves

wildhawker
06-01-2011, 11:46 PM
His brief was very well written. I especially loved the GFSZ map he provided:

http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2337

:rolleyes:

I wonder what CA gun rights group may have brought that to his attention?

-Brandon

OleCuss
06-02-2011, 6:48 AM
I wonder what CA gun rights group may have brought that to his attention?

-Brandon

I think I could get that with one guess. . .

But I think that we have to thank San Francisco and the State Legislature themselves for making it so abundantly clear just how ridiculous gun laws can be.

Glock22Fan
06-02-2011, 7:12 AM
His brief was very well written. I especially loved the GFSZ map he provided:

http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2337

:rolleyes:

Priceless!

Mulay El Raisuli
06-02-2011, 7:26 AM
Not surprisingly, Gura's Brief is the best. Somewhat surprisingly, the NRA's is also very good.

IEETA's Brief, shows the utter inanity of UOC as a self defense measure & is very useful for that reason.


The Raisuli

Rossi357
06-02-2011, 8:03 AM
These briefs appear to be a co-ordinated attack from all directions. Love it.

Patrick-2
06-02-2011, 8:16 AM
Not surprisingly, Gura's Brief is the best. Somewhat surprisingly, the NRA's is also very good.

IEETA's Brief, shows the utter inanity of UOC as a self defense measure & is very useful for that reason.


The Raisuli

You should take a look at who wrote the NRA brief. Google his name. He is good friends and on a first-name with most of the Supreme Court Justices.

I hope to see more of these dog-piles as other cases move up the chain, especially if Williams (MD carry case) gets cert.

Foulball
06-02-2011, 8:33 AM
Towards.?.?.?.?

There are some fine examples of legal writing, each with their own angle on the issue...

Yes, towards. It will be pure awesomeness when we get the judge to agree.

:)

Quser.619
06-02-2011, 10:33 AM
Is it me of am I alone getting nervous w/ all of these strong steps being taken. Maybe I've just become so accustomed to having my hopes either destroyed or the victory not being encompassing enough. I know it relates to my lack of legal knowledge. I'm grateful for these steps, but cannot help be anxious & slightly skeptical.

At what point is it not better to be pessimistic & pleasantly surprised when we win?

Either way, I'm truly grateful that this fight is being taken by those w/ the proper patience & understanding & by those who can keep their eyes on the ball long enough to win the battle, step-by-step.

Zak
06-02-2011, 10:34 AM
ILEETA's brief drives home the idea that UOC is insufficient, and dangerous to the victim and possibly the public at large, pretty well.

I always knew UOC was terrible, but after reading ILEETA's brief, I now see UOC as completely useless. The videos could have been done better IMO, but they explain pretty well how UOC is actually more dangerous than LOC. It was definitely a good read.

NoJoke
06-02-2011, 1:20 PM
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership,_

Oh, really? There's such a THANG? :D

Nice.... http://www.claremont.org/projects/projectid.39/project_detail.asp

Mulay El Raisuli
06-03-2011, 4:26 AM
You should take a look at who wrote the NRA brief. Google his name. He is good friends and on a first-name with most of the Supreme Court Justices.


True, but wasn't he the guy somewhat 'in the way' when Gura argued Heller?


I hope to see more of these dog-piles as other cases move up the chain, especially if Williams (MD carry case) gets cert.


Yes, I am crossing my fingers, my toes & even my eyes hoping that Williams gets cert. I think that'll be the case that finally breaks the logjam.


The Raisuli

huck
06-03-2011, 8:24 AM
I read Gura's a few days ago and enjoyed it. I read the NRA's last night. The first 10 pages were painful to get through, but it was excellent from that point on.

This is from the NRA’s Amicus:

First, the Court has reiterated that there are no second-class citizens when it comes to enumerated constitutional rights. Once a right is recognized as fundamental, it cannot be relegated to a lower plane: No constitutional right is less fundamental than others, and there is no principled basis on which to create a hierarchy of constitutional values.
To view a particular provision of the Bill of Rights with disfavor inevitably results in a constricted application of it. This is to disrespect the Constitution.

Over the next several pages, they pound this one home. It’s worth reading.

yellowfin
06-03-2011, 8:26 AM
Don B. Kates' brief was really easy to understand for a regular non-law guy (like me. :)) Please, take the time to read it and end your confusion!
A brief perspective of our gun laws and how they evolved into unwieldy restrictions; and evidence of the corrupt CCW issuance practices in this state.
RayIt's HUGELY useful for us fighting New York's system as well.

Grakken
06-03-2011, 2:57 PM
Did the bradys submit one of these for the other side? Would certainly like to read it, and the use it for butt wipe.

BRoss
06-03-2011, 3:06 PM
Did the bradys submit one of these for the other side? Would certainly like to read it, and the use it for butt wipe.

No. Or not yet, I should say. The deadline to file amicus briefs in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants or in support of neither party was May 31st. You can expect the amicus briefs in support of Sheriff Gore and San Diego County to be filed within a week or less of when they file their Answering Brief (which is currently due on July 22, 2011).

HowardW56
06-03-2011, 3:35 PM
Did the bradys submit one of these for the other side? Would certainly like to read it, and the use it for butt wipe.

That would be a waste of ink... But I agree with the sentiment...

huck
06-03-2011, 4:58 PM
That would be a waste of ink... But I agree with the sentiment...


Seriously, I'd love to see how they can possibly defend this indefensible position.

Patrick-2
06-07-2011, 1:26 PM
Is it me of am I alone getting nervous w/ all of these strong steps being taken. Maybe I've just become so accustomed to having my hopes either destroyed or the victory not being encompassing enough. I know it relates to my lack of legal knowledge. I'm grateful for these steps, but cannot help be anxious & slightly skeptical.

At what point is it not better to be pessimistic & pleasantly surprised when we win?

Either way, I'm truly grateful that this fight is being taken by those w/ the proper patience & understanding & by those who can keep their eyes on the ball long enough to win the battle, step-by-step.

It's not you. Over at MDShooters someone coined the phrase "Battered Gun Owner Syndrome" (BGOS) for it. You are so used to being dumped on that you feel it will never end.

But think this through. In all truth, you are living today in a time when your freedom for this civil right is greater than it has likely been at any time in your life (at least mine and I am pushing 40). A lot has happened and much more is coming. For one thing, nobody in California can take your gun from your hand in your home. That's a big step.


Some of us in the difficult states are still fighting for the things others take for granted. Just look to the nation and see the massive change over the last twenty years that undid much of the gun control put in place over the previous 100.

Look up. It's good and getting better.

guns4life
06-07-2011, 1:30 PM
Do these briefs really help? I always see threads about this one and that one filled, do the judges actually consider and address them or are they more for show?

ddestruel
07-12-2011, 1:59 PM
have any more dogs piled on lately

Glock22Fan
07-12-2011, 2:21 PM
have any more dogs piled on lately

The deadline has passed for briefs in support of the plaintiffs or neutral; Sheriff Gore's response, and any supporting amicus briefs, have about ten days and nearly three weeks (resp.) to go.

No. Or not yet, I should say. The deadline to file amicus briefs in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants or in support of neither party was May 31st. You can expect the amicus briefs in support of Sheriff Gore and San Diego County to be filed within a week or less of when they file their Answering Brief (which is currently due on July 22, 2011).

notme92069
08-02-2011, 1:13 PM
What is the current schedule for this?

Window_Seat
08-02-2011, 1:28 PM
What is the current schedule for this?Not sure if there's a schedule yet, but these, I found on the CD Michel site:

Citation of Supplemental Authority (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/DBK-Amicus-Brief-Filed.pdf)

Order Re: Aligning Peruta and Richards Case for Oral Argument (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta_Order-Re-Aligning-Oral-Argument.pdf)

Erik.

Crom
08-02-2011, 1:31 PM
I can peer into PACER and see if there is anything posted there...

Window_Seat
08-02-2011, 1:35 PM
I can peer into PACER and see if there is anything posted there...

What's posted above, is what is off of pacer, unless you want to spend $4.80.

Erik.

Crom
08-02-2011, 1:56 PM
The latest filing was on July 8th, 2011. It's a 3-page document citing Ezell.

It looks like Ezel is attached as a 60 page document.

Filing #45 said: Filed order MEDIATION (PWS): The briefing schedule previously set by the court is reset as follows: appellees shall file an answering brief on or before August 12, 2011; appellants may file an optional reply brief on or before September 6, 2011

I tried to post the docket in word format but the forum groaned and complained that:

Peruta General Docket - August 2 - 2011.doc:
Your file of 239.5 KB bytes exceeds the forum's limit of 127.0 KB for this filetype.


What's posted above, is what is off of pacer, unless you want to spend $4.80.

Erik.

Erik, PACER is free for up to $9.99 per 3-month quarter. :) That's right! You can access 499 pages of legal filings for free each year (124 pages per quarter).

wash
08-02-2011, 2:12 PM
Not sure if there's a schedule yet, but these, I found on the CD Michel site:

Citation of Supplemental Authority (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/DBK-Amicus-Brief-Filed.pdf)

Order Re: Aligning Peruta and Richards Case for Oral Argument (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta_Order-Re-Aligning-Oral-Argument.pdf)

Erik.
Now I see why Chuck was on a name tag at Murphys.

Window_Seat
08-02-2011, 2:26 PM
Now I see why Chuck was on a name tag at Murphys.

Don't make me post a CNReporter blog (or "Don't CNBlog me, bro")... :laugh::p



Erik, PACER is free for up to $9.99 per 3-month quarter. :) That's right! You can access 499 pages of legal filings for free each year (124 pages per quarter).

Got it... My math was really bad there for some reason (which is why I became a truck driver...) :(

Erik.

notme92069
08-02-2011, 5:15 PM
Thanks. So it looks like we are awaiting an answering brief by Aug 12 and a reply brief by Sept 6. I'll put them on my calendar

Al Norris
08-02-2011, 6:27 PM
Erik, PACER is free for up to $9.99 per 3-month quarter.

That's a bit of a misnomer. In order to see what might be new (assuming you aren't actually tracking and have dates set on your calendar), you have to look at the docket. That can be up to a buck, if the case has lots of filings. If you are running the FireFox browser and have the RECAP applet, this will tell you what has already been downloaded, so you don't have to download something that is already available on the Internet Archive.

There are some cases that have filings that aren't scheduled - like all those who have filed supplemental authorities (Ezell, or any other case whose decision helps our side).

So with all the cases that are out there, some weeks it can be a real crap-shoot.

For those of you that don't use FireFox (with the RECAP applet), then whatever you download is yours and is not sharable (unless you upload it to a forum, such as CalGuns) with the rest of the nationwide firearms community.

Regardless, $10 per quarter doesn't go very far, with this many cases.

notme92069
08-11-2011, 4:03 PM
The latest filing was on July 8th, 2011. It's a 3-page document citing Ezell.

It looks like Ezel is attached as a 60 page document.

Filing #45 said: Filed order MEDIATION (PWS): The briefing schedule previously set by the court is reset as follows: appellees shall file an answering brief on or before August 12, 2011; appellants may file an optional reply brief on or before September 6, 2011

I tried to post the docket in word format but the forum groaned and complained that:

Peruta General Docket - August 2 - 2011.doc:
Your file of 239.5 KB bytes exceeds the forum's limit of 127.0 KB for this filetype.




Erik, PACER is free for up to $9.99 per 3-month quarter. :) That's right! You can access 499 pages of legal filings for free each year (124 pages per quarter).


Are we expecting an answering brief today?

OleCuss
08-11-2011, 4:38 PM
". . .on or before. . ." seems to mean "on". Not entirely sure why the filings occur on the last possible day but I'd guess it is a combination of procrastination, taking every moment one is given to polish one's arguments, or not giving the opposition one extra second to study the brief once it is filed.

So let's say I filed a brief (or somesuch) at noon today when the deadline is Close Of Business tomorrow?

Tomorrow at 0800 I discover a favorable case which I did not cite and I can no longer cite because I filed one day early.

And what if tonight I realize I should have phrased something differently? I didn't realize that my phrasing was unfortunate when I filed at noon today so I don't have the chance to revise the filing and submit a much stronger argument tomorrow.

And if I file today, the 11th, when I'm not required to file until tomorrow, that means that the opposition has one extra day to craft their response.

Strategically there is an advantage to filing at the very last moment. Since I'm no lawyer it may be that I'm thinking the advantage is worth a little more than it really is - and I'd be worried that someone might get sick at the last moment or that there might be a traffic problem, etc., which means that last-minute filing might lead to a disastrous non-filing.

But for whatever reason, I've noticed that in the cases we follow the filings are quite frequently not until the last possible day. Since for this filing the last possible date is tomorrow, I expect to see the filing tomorrow.

Kharn
08-11-2011, 5:23 PM
Mainly it is denying the opposition the free time. ;)

Window_Seat
08-11-2011, 5:30 PM
Nothing in PACER as of 07/08.

Erik.

notme92069
08-11-2011, 5:40 PM
Opps, sorry. I'm screwed up schedule wise. I put the wrong day in my calendar. Sometimes I suffer from rectal cranial impaction

dantodd
08-11-2011, 6:36 PM
Mainly it is denying the opposition the free time. ;)

I thought the clock started ticking for responses when you file not the last moment you could have filed. Anyone know for sure?

OleCuss
08-11-2011, 7:05 PM
The reply brief is due the 6th of September no matter when this brief is filed. So if you filed today you'd have given the bad guys an extra day to cook up their response.

OleCuss
08-11-2011, 7:06 PM
Mainly it is denying the opposition the free time. ;)

Thank you for the perspective. It makes sense.

Window_Seat
08-11-2011, 7:10 PM
The reply brief is due the 6th of September no matter when this brief is filed. So if you filed today you'd have given the bad guys an extra day to cook up their response.

And that answers a question I had not asked before... :thumbsup:

Erik.

Patrick-2
08-12-2011, 2:42 AM
How many here ever turned in a term paper early? ;)

VegasND
08-12-2011, 7:50 AM
Raises Hand.
How many here ever turned in a term paper early? ;)

I liked classes that required a paper rather than a final exam. I turned in papers early so I could sit around and visit in the Student Union while waiting for the classes that did have exams. It made finals week much more relaxed for me.

I actually got a kick out of watching the people cramming and stressing for finals.

dantodd
08-12-2011, 10:40 AM
The reply brief is due the 6th of September no matter when this brief is filed. So if you filed today you'd have given the bad guys an extra day to cook up their response.

That answers that question. Then there is no reason to not wait until the last day so that you can include any new information that develops, spend more time crafting the wording of your response and limiting the amount of time the opposition has to respond. Thanks, I hadn't realized the response time was not contingent upon the filing date.

krucam
08-12-2011, 2:08 PM
Defendant/Appellee Answering Brief to Complaint attached...I've not had a chance to read, but figured those of you on the West Coast can dissect while I cook supper out East.:D

OleCuss
08-12-2011, 2:38 PM
Defendant/Appellee Answering Brief to Complaint attached...I've not had a chance to read, but figured those of you on the West Coast can dissect while I cook supper out East.:D

Thanx.

But, wow! I did a brief scan of the brief and consider it to be full of fail.

Oh, it's pretty well written, and unless AB144 passes in the next few weeks it might even win the court's blessing.

But seriously, they're quoting Breyer?

In one place they seem to be quoting Nordyke suggesting rational basis is appropriate and a little later they're pointing out that rational basis is not appropriate?

Mis-stating Heller?

Citing Skoien and ignoring Ezell? Saying that all courts are going with a very limited view of the 2A right (pretty much home defense is protected and nothing else) and seemingly ignoring Ezell and Chester (IIRC)?

From my perspective it seems it should be easy to rip this one apart. Heck, I'm a little tempted to write something up for kicks (no, in real life I know I won't). But the court likely will buy the very limited view of the 2A right as argued in this filing.

krucam
08-12-2011, 2:48 PM
Agree with OleCuss. My comments from MDShooters:

Right off the bat in their Introduction, it seems as though San Diego (SD) has finally caught on to the scope/magnitude of this case, now sitting at the 9th Circuit.
This case is an indirect effort to change California‘s statutory limitations on the public carry of loaded firearms by attacking the concealed carry licensing policy of a single county sheriff. Appellants‘ argument is, at its a core, a challenge to Penal Code section 12031 rather than this Sheriff‘s administration of concealed carry licensing.
No *****. This is what happens when individuals at the lowest tiers of government are successfully challenged. The stakes are indeed getting higher....thank you SD! Your winning at District now lets us bring this forward for the entire West Coast, not just CA PC12031.

The next 4 pages was their glowing overview of their licensing scheme and how fair it is. Just like in MD, there is an appeal process for those who are denied. Edward Peruta, being a non-resident of California was denied using a motor home as his residence in San Diego.

California's equivalent of MD's "Good and Substantial" is "Good Cause". Just like in MD, fear for one's personal safety alone, is not considered "Good Cause". So far this brief is reading like many others, including Woollard.

SD then goes into the "Prevailing Judicial Interpretation" of the 2A scope, which in their world is of course limiting 2A to the home. Bear means the right to defend "hearth and home". At least 4 pages are spent on this old argument.

This isn't going to work any more. No mas...

They then go into the Bear argument using the standard "concealed carry" jurisprudence. I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure this is addressed as a "Bear" case, not a CCW case. They spend at least 5 pages doing this.

The Sheriff's practices meet any standard of Scrutiny....wrong...

They then say, are you sitting down?
Intermediate Scrutiny is Applied When Firearm Possession in The Home is Involved.
FAIL

They follow that with:
Rational Basis Review Would Be Appropriate after Nordyke.
Double-FAIL

Then:
The Sheriff’s Licensing Practices Survive Any Standard of Review.

I'm wasting my time reading this tripe. Fact: There is NOTHING new in any of their arguments. They've copy/pasted from the Brady's all around. Piss poor brief.

I'm not drinking what they're drinking I guess...

notme92069
08-12-2011, 2:58 PM
Isn't it obvious? They intend to put everyone to sleep with this thing

Window_Seat
08-12-2011, 3:11 PM
Thanks for bringing this up, Krucam! :thumbsup:

Brief of Brady Campaign, The International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the Police Foundation (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta_Amicus-Brief-of-Brady-Center-to-Prevent-Gun-Violence.pdf) (08/12)

Erik.

Glock22Fan
08-12-2011, 3:42 PM
The Sheriff‘s goal is to reduce the number of secretly armed citizens on the streets and sidewalks of one of the biggest urban areas in the United States. Id. Use of concealed weapons in streets and public places poses a greater threat to public safety. (See generally Zimring Declaration, ER Vol. III, Tab 30; the problem of gun robbery in American cities is almost exclusively a problem of concealable handguns.)


"The more LTC's. the more gun robbery there will be." Yea, sure.

They just don't get the difference between law abiding citizens with an LTC, and gangbangers with Glocks tucked into their pants, do they?

eaglemike
08-12-2011, 3:55 PM
Boy, those concealable weapons sure are dangerous. They just keep jumping out there and committing crimes. [\sarcasm] Isn't that what Brady just said??

Hmmmm simple man that I am, I thought crimes were committed by people that decided to be criminals......

Of course, as pointed out many times, crimes committed by those LTC is extremely low......... Somehow this simple concept sails right over their collective intellect.

Lots of conjecture and opinion. Where is the clarity of thought like Judge Sykes (IIRC the correct judge).

Good luck to you Mr Peruta!

Connor P Price
08-12-2011, 4:51 PM
I love how they are still trying to act like Heller somehow limited the right to the home.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

2009_gunner
08-12-2011, 5:10 PM
... the Heller opinion expressed apparent constitutional approval of the historically accepted statutory proscriptions against carrying concealed weapons.

Oh my. With such free use of the word "apparent," one could say "my dog expressed apparent disbelief that our Sheriff has trouble in reading comprehension."

wazdat
08-12-2011, 8:12 PM
What a load of tripe...

Looking forward to the reply brief.

dantodd
08-12-2011, 8:13 PM
They just don't get the difference between law abiding citizens with an LTC, and gangbangers with Glocks tucked into their pants, do they?


Of course they do. It's perfectly safe to approach an LTC holder and tell them you think it's not acceptable for them to be in your city. Gangbangers carrying illegally, not so much. getting home safe is priority one so the law abiding citizen gets hassled. Thankfully not all cops are like that.

randian
08-13-2011, 12:09 AM
They just don't get the difference between law abiding citizens with an LTC, and gangbangers with Glocks tucked into their pants, do they?
Policing the law abiding and giving thugs a de facto free pass is the lowest-effort thing to do. See what's happening in London for a prime example of this.

hoffmang
08-13-2011, 12:34 AM
I just love that the word "Ezell" appears no where in San Diego's brief.

Heh.

-Gene

press1280
08-13-2011, 3:25 AM
"The more LTC's. the more gun robbery there will be." Yea, sure.

They just don't get the difference between law abiding citizens with an LTC, and gangbangers with Glocks tucked into their pants, do they?


This is from the Progressive playbook. Lump legal and illegal gun owners together just like they lump illegal and legal immigrants.

Patrick-2
08-13-2011, 3:32 AM
Wow. I cannot imagine much of this would pass the sniff test in law school. At least not one I would fire from.

This is a mess in many ways, and frankly we could pick it apart all day. Others will (and must), but I told myself to just pick on thing that sums up their entire strategy, and this was it:

The Supreme Court has deemed the interest behind almost every gun-control regulation - advancing safety and the lives of its citizens as well as ―the government‘s general interest in preventing crime,‖ - to be ―compelling.‖ Heller, 554 U.S. at 689 (Breyer, J., dissenting)

"The Supreme Court has deemed",...via a dissenting opinion that was strongly repudiated by the majority?

Perhaps San Diego can also claim "The Supreme Court has deemed that 'In view of the purpose of the terms to restrain the courts from a wholesale invalidation of state laws under the Equal Protection Clause it would be difficult to say that the poll tax requirement is 'irrational' or 'arbitrary' or works 'invidious discriminations.' ", just because Justice Black argued the same in his dissent from Harper?

To me, this is the sum of their arguments: grab any contextual reference they can and twist it beyond breaking. Ignore the rest. As Gene notes, they completely avoid Ezell. Even when much of their argument rests on pointing out what the other courts are doing, they avoid a Circuit decision that actually lays a framework for 2A analysis, just because they do not like the outcome of that analysis.

Some of this borders on intellectual dishonesty. Claiming there is no contravening framework when one clearly exists is disingenuous. Claiming that a repudiated dissent constitutes a finding of the Supreme Court is inherently desperate.

And this is what we read here: desperation.

The beauty of it is, the Ninth will eat this up - even if the arguments are so poor that agreeing with them requires a blatant admission that they care not what the constitution says, but only what they can do to prevent it from being applied.

Idiot-proof prediction: The Ninth will say that the right exists in some form but that the spectre of public safety rationalizes any law that might regulate it out of existence, except for special circumstances. This will conveniently cover any for of carry in anticipation of LOC challenges.

Anyone want to bet against that? ;)

OleCuss
08-13-2011, 5:00 AM
I just love that the word "Ezell" appears no where in San Diego's brief.

Heh.

-Gene

Yeah, as I was first scanning it I could see no references to it and they seemed to make bald assertions which were inconsistent with the very existence of the Ezell ruling.

I thought that omission to be a big enough mistake that I actually did a search for "Ezell" and it didn't come up.

IMHO, this goes against the credibility of the brief and should make the reply even more delicious.

yellowfin
08-13-2011, 5:32 AM
Idiot-proof prediction: The Ninth will say that the right exists in some form but that the spectre of public safety rationalizes any law that might regulate it out of existence, except for special circumstances. This will conveniently cover any for of carry in anticipation of LOC challenges.

Anyone want to bet against that? ;)I just hope SCOTUS doesn't just GVR it and put the pen back in their hands to write the opinion that will last. If what you say is accurate then they'll be just as dishonest and weasel their way around a ruling that is 180 degrees opposite what they want to rule.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-13-2011, 6:12 AM
Wow. I cannot imagine much of this would pass the sniff test in law school. At least not one I would fire from.

This is a mess in many ways, and frankly we could pick it apart all day. Others will (and must), but I told myself to just pick on thing that sums up their entire strategy, and this was it:



"The Supreme Court has deemed",...via a dissenting opinion that was strongly repudiated by the majority?

Perhaps San Diego can also claim "The Supreme Court has deemed that 'In view of the purpose of the terms to restrain the courts from a wholesale invalidation of state laws under the Equal Protection Clause it would be difficult to say that the poll tax requirement is 'irrational' or 'arbitrary' or works 'invidious discriminations.' ", just because Justice Black argued the same in his dissent from Harper?

To me, this is the sum of their arguments: grab any contextual reference they can and twist it beyond breaking. Ignore the rest. As Gene notes, they completely avoid Ezell. Even when much of their argument rests on pointing out what the other courts are doing, they avoid a Circuit decision that actually lays a framework for 2A analysis, just because they do not like the outcome of that analysis.

Some of this borders on intellectual dishonesty. Claiming there is no contravening framework when one clearly exists is disingenuous. Claiming that a repudiated dissent constitutes a finding of the Supreme Court is inherently desperate.

And this is what we read here: desperation.

The beauty of it is, the Ninth will eat this up - even if the arguments are so poor that agreeing with them requires a blatant admission that they care not what the constitution says, but only what they can do to prevent it from being applied.

Idiot-proof prediction: The Ninth will say that the right exists in some form but that the spectre of public safety rationalizes any law that might regulate it out of existence, except for special circumstances. This will conveniently cover any for of carry in anticipation of LOC challenges.

Anyone want to bet against that? ;)


Yes, both emphasize that Heller applies "in the home" & ONLY "in the home." The foundation for everything in their briefs is built upon that (false) belief. Until SCOTUS clarifies that Heller is NOT limited to "in the home," we're going to have to fight this aspect each & every step of the way.

OTOH, I think that will happen fairly soon. Which explains the desperation I see in both briefs.

Your comment on LOC is interesting (which I presume should have read "cover any regs for the carrying..."). Both briefs hammer concealed (I.E., secret) carry quite hard. Not surprising given the dicta in Heller (which again, I expect to be clarified fairly soon). They might just be thinking about how to prevent LOC in the future. Especially since LOC avoids the whole concealed/secret thing, & so undercuts just about every one of their citations.


The Raisuli

P.S.


Raises Hand.


I liked classes that required a paper rather than a final exam. I turned in papers early so I could sit around and visit in the Student Union while waiting for the classes that did have exams. It made finals week much more relaxed for me.

I actually got a kick out of watching the people cramming and stressing for finals.


So, you're one of those people.

JK :)

Window_Seat
08-13-2011, 7:29 AM
San Diego can forbear Ezell, but ultimately, they can't avoid it.

Erik.

Patrick-2
08-13-2011, 8:39 AM
Neither can the Ninth. I am not sure how they can avoid addressing it in this case, somehow. It will be an issue, even though they have Nordyke. You cannot pick and choose jurisprudence from around the nation and avoid other Circuits that provide frameworks for evaluation. San Diego should have taken some shots while they could.

Glock22Fan
08-13-2011, 8:47 AM
Of course they do. It's perfectly safe to approach an LTC holder and tell them you think it's not acceptable for them to be in your city. Gangbangers carrying illegally, not so much. getting home safe is priority one so the law abiding citizen gets hassled. Thankfully not all cops are like that.

They might "get it" internally but this brief argues that they don't. They clearly equate lowering the number of legally carried firearms with lowering the crime rate, as if this was some linear relationship, and ignore the fact that lowering the LTC's makes no difference to the number of firearms illegally concealed (arguably increases them), that is, the ones that are almost entirely the ones that are actually used for crime. You can tell an LTC holder that he isn't welcome in your city, but in 999,999 cases out of a million this will make no difference whatsoever to the crime rate.

KylaGWolf
08-13-2011, 4:24 PM
"The more LTC's. the more gun robbery there will be." Yea, sure.

They just don't get the difference between law abiding citizens with an LTC, and gangbangers with Glocks tucked into their pants, do they?


Oh they get it but don't care. But I will say this. Even IF we manage to get LTC legalized and all that fun stuff it will not stop businesses from saying you still cannot carry in their store. There are already places here in San Diego that have signs up that say no concealed or open carry allowed in the store.

wash
08-13-2011, 4:35 PM
They can't do much if you are carrying concealed.

Unless they want to put up metal detectors, the only thing they can do is ask you to leave if they see your gun.

LOC doesn't work out so well but eventually after blood doesn't run down the streets and enough people quit patronizing stores that ban carry, those stores will wise up and change their policy.

randian
08-14-2011, 12:06 AM
Unless they want to put up metal detectors, the only thing they can do is ask you to leave if they see your gun.

Depends on whether they rewrite the law. In most states, ignoring a gunbuster sign is a misdemeanor, and you're in no real legal jeopardy unless you're stupid.

If the legal battle goes as we'd like, I'd bet a vindictive CA legislature makes ignoring a gunbuster sign a primary felony (except for the usual privileged suspects). Care to take the risk then?

Al Norris
08-14-2011, 7:19 AM
I just can't see that statement and let it stand.

In most states, ignoring a gunbuster sign is a misdemeanor,

Care to name them? (I think you will be surprised, if you really look)

tiki
08-14-2011, 7:53 AM
Yes, both emphasize that Heller applies "in the home" & ONLY "in the home." The foundation for everything in their briefs is built upon that (false) belief. Until SCOTUS clarifies that Heller is NOT limited to "in the home," we're going to have to fight this aspect each & every step of the way.

it's the same logic/tactic used with the Miller ruling. Look how long that crap hung around.

Miller and Heller should be questions on the Bar Rxam.

According to the Miller ruling:
A) the 2nd Amendment only protects the militia and military.
B) the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply because the type of firearm used by Miller is not a type protected by the 2nd.
C) it tastes great
D) it's less filling

According to the Heller ruling:
A) the 2nd Amendment only applies in the home.
B) since the 2nd Amendments protection applies to individuals, the Districts law prohibiting handguns in the home is illegal.
C) since for years we have omitted "shall not be infringed" from our reading of the 2nd, we can just as easily add "only in the home"
D) it's a story, of a man named Brady who was busy with 3 boys of his own.


You must answer correctly to pass.

kcbrown
08-14-2011, 2:08 PM
LOC doesn't work out so well but eventually after blood doesn't run down the streets and enough people quit patronizing stores that ban carry, those stores will wise up and change their policy.

"Enough people"? In California? Where everyone runs away screaming at the sight of a gun? Are you kidding?

No, I dare say that even if we get 10% of the population carrying concealed, it's not going to be enough to sway store owners who are sufficiently anti-gun that they're willing to state a "no guns in our store" policy. Ideology is a more powerful motivator than the loss of a relatively small amount of business, even in hard economic times.

kcbrown
08-14-2011, 2:09 PM
Depends on whether they rewrite the law. In most states, ignoring a gunbuster sign is a misdemeanor, and you're in no real legal jeopardy unless you're stupid.

If the legal battle goes as we'd like, I'd bet a vindictive CA legislature makes ignoring a gunbuster sign a primary felony (except for the usual privileged suspects). Care to take the risk then?

Yep, exactly. This is something you can count on for sure.

hoffmang
08-14-2011, 3:06 PM
Yep, exactly. This is something you can count on for sure.

Doubt it seriously. Judges get carry licenses and aren't immune from an equal protections analysis.

-Gene

yellowfin
08-14-2011, 6:11 PM
Even more so, there are serious civil rights issues if the legislature tries to make it so--if they do that, we'll get a court ruling saying that NO ONE can put up a sign like that because that's turning Constitutionally protected exercise of a fundamental right into a crime.

Oh Gene...got a minute? I'm working on something I'd like to run by you.

kcbrown
08-14-2011, 6:23 PM
Even more so, there are serious civil rights issues if the legislature tries to make it so--if they do that, we'll get a court ruling saying that NO ONE can put up a sign like that because that's turning Constitutionally protected exercise of a fundamental right into a crime.


No, it's turning violation of a private property owner's right to dictate the rules of his property into a crime.

Their property, their rules ... right?

You can't simultaneously argue that private property owners should be able to set up and enforce any arbitrary rule they like against those on their property and that others who are on that person's property should be able to exercise their fundamental Constitutional rights against the property owner's wishes. One of the two has to lose.

So which is it?

kcbrown
08-14-2011, 6:26 PM
Doubt it seriously. Judges get carry licenses and aren't immune from an equal protections analysis.


The law might not make an exception for judges, but it will certainly make an exception for law enforcement officers.

Good luck with your equal protection action against that...

hoffmang
08-14-2011, 9:39 PM
The law might not make an exception for judges, but it will certainly make an exception for law enforcement officers.

Good luck with your equal protection action against that...

Correct on the latter, but do you really think state and federal judges will be ok with the former?

-Gene

eaglemike
08-14-2011, 9:45 PM
No, it's turning violation of a private property owner's right to dictate the rules of his property into a crime.

Their property, their rules ... right?

You can't simultaneously argue that private property owners should be able to set up and enforce any arbitrary rule they like against those on their property and that others who are on that person's property should be able to exercise their fundamental Constitutional rights against the property owner's wishes. One of the two has to lose.

So which is it?
Remember the new definition of public property/private property - see Thesus. :(

If it's really private property and the owner can have and enforce a gun-free zone - then how can the courts declare it public property? (In my feeble little mind public place doesn't always equal public property) Judicial redefinition of language really really (insert negative word here).

dantodd
08-14-2011, 9:46 PM
You can't simultaneously argue that private property owners should be able to set up and enforce any arbitrary rule they like against those on their property and that others who are on that person's property should be able to exercise their fundamental Constitutional rights against the property owner's wishes. One of the two has to lose.

So which is it?

In an ideal world property rights win out and the business owner who chooses to violate civil rights will be punished by the free market.

However; we do not live in this "ideal world" and as long as those offering "public accommodation" are forced to serve people regardless of their race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability etc. then you can damn well bet that I am going to work to include the exercise of 2A rights in that list.

kcbrown
08-14-2011, 10:18 PM
Correct on the latter, but do you really think state and federal judges will be ok with the former?


Depends on the judge, but for judges in California, I don't think most are going to care, since most are anti-gun anyway. Their position means they'll be treated with kid gloves by the judicial system if it even gets that far (the way I see it, that's going to be one of those situations where the officer involved uses his "discretion").

Law enforcement is exempt from a number of laws that others, even judges, are not, yes? So is this not something that judges would already be used to?

Rossi357
08-14-2011, 10:34 PM
Here is some info on common areas in shopping malls regarding the 1st amendment.

Holding:A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

hoffmang
08-14-2011, 11:32 PM
Here is some info on common areas in shopping malls regarding the 1st amendment.

Holding:A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

Pruneyard is never going to be paralleled to the 2A by CA courts. SCOTUS doesn't recognize it as interpreting the 1A either. It's an anomaly of this states freedom of speech jurisprudence.

kcbrown, you keep underestimating the political clout of today's carry licensees and you forget that law enforcement does need an exception as they don't need a carry license.

-Gene

kcbrown
08-15-2011, 1:04 AM
kcbrown, you keep underestimating the political clout of today's carry licensees and you forget that law enforcement does need an exception as they don't need a carry license.


That law enforcement doesn't need a carry license is irrelevant. The law in question can, and probably will, be written in such a way that it doesn't mention such licenses at all.

But regardless, even if law enforcement were required to obtain carry licenses, the law in question would still embed a law enforcement exemption for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that lack of such an exemption would be seen as impeding the ability of law enforcement officers to do their jobs.

In reality, the legislature is likely to place a law enforcement exemption into such a law almost reflexively. Law enforcement is, after all, the very reason the laws the legislature passes have any power at all.


As to the political clout of today's carry licensees, if things go as I expect then those carry licensees are going to be given some means to distinguish themselves from the common rabble once "shall issue" becomes a reality. I envision them being given some special means of becoming "law enforcement officers" themselves, a means that will not be made available to the general public at large. Whether that survives some sort of equal protection challenge is another matter altogether, but I'm confident that the very carry licensees you refer to will, if necessary, hand-craft the appropriate legislation in such a way as to withstand such a challenge. They may even make it possible for the state and federal judges you referred to previously to join their ranks, thus bolstering their political strength while minimizing the risk of a successful equal protection challenge.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-15-2011, 4:55 AM
it's the same logic/tactic used with the Miller ruling. Look how long that crap hung around.

Miller and Heller should be questions on the Bar Rxam.

According to the Miller ruling:
A) the 2nd Amendment only protects the militia and military.
B) the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply because the type of firearm used by Miller is not a type protected by the 2nd.
C) it tastes great
D) it's less filling

According to the Heller ruling:
A) the 2nd Amendment only applies in the home.
B) since the 2nd Amendments protection applies to individuals, the Districts law prohibiting handguns in the home is illegal.
C) since for years we have omitted "shall not be infringed" from our reading of the 2nd, we can just as easily add "only in the home"
D) it's a story, of a man named Brady who was busy with 3 boys of his own.


You must answer correctly to pass.


LOL!

Seriously though, there is a difference between now & the 1930s: Gura wasn't around then but is now.


That law enforcement doesn't need a carry license is irrelevant. The law in question can, and probably will, be written in such a way that it doesn't mention such licenses at all.

But regardless, even if law enforcement were required to obtain carry licenses, the law in question would still embed a law enforcement exemption for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that lack of such an exemption would be seen as impeding the ability of law enforcement officers to do their jobs.

In reality, the legislature is likely to place a law enforcement exemption into such a law almost reflexively. Law enforcement is, after all, the very reason the laws the legislature passes have any power at all.


As to the political clout of today's carry licensees, if things go as I expect then those carry licensees are going to be given some means to distinguish themselves from the common rabble once "shall issue" becomes a reality. I envision them being given some special means of becoming "law enforcement officers" themselves, a means that will not be made available to the general public at large. Whether that survives some sort of equal protection challenge is another matter altogether, but I'm confident that the very carry licensees you refer to will, if necessary, hand-craft the appropriate legislation in such a way as to withstand such a challenge. They may even make it possible for the state and federal judges you referred to previously to join their ranks, thus bolstering their political strength while minimizing the risk of a successful equal protection challenge.


That would make judges members of the judiciary AND executive branch at the same time. Isn't that prohibited?


The Raisuli

bulgron
08-15-2011, 8:00 AM
That would make judges members of the judiciary AND executive branch at the same time. Isn't that prohibited?


Probably.

I agree with KCBrown, though, in that I believe the people running this state will at least try to create a 2-tier CCW system. (Yes, I do think they're that crazy/stupid.) I expect them to fail, but nevertheless it will be one more battle on the path to forcing CA to respect the US Constitution.

hoffmang
08-15-2011, 10:30 PM
Probably.

I agree with KCBrown, though, in that I believe the people running this state will at least try to create a 2-tier CCW system. (Yes, I do think they're that crazy/stupid.) I expect them to fail, but nevertheless it will be one more battle on the path to forcing CA to respect the US Constitution.

Just like there is a 2 tiered system for any other fundamental enumerated right?

Not happening. See Citizens United. You and KCBrown are both too smart to be elected. Think about what I mean by that.

-Gene

kcbrown
08-16-2011, 1:59 AM
Just like there is a 2 tiered system for any other fundamental enumerated right?

Not happening. See Citizens United. You and KCBrown are both too smart to be elected. Think about what I mean by that.


I believe I know what you mean by that, but legislation like what we're talking about isn't written by politicians, it's written by members of special interests who are also "too smart" to be elected. And while the political process may attempt to modify such legislation, such special interests would not sit still for such a thing.

Citizens United is an example of a victory for some of those "special interests", as the law in question was an attempt to limit political speech on the part of entities that are far more powerful and long-lived than mere individuals. The Supreme Court recognized that even those entities are comprised of individual people whose rights exist even while in the context of those entities. It was the right call, but make no mistake: had the case been about limiting the speech of ordinary people then it could easily have gone the other way.


In reality, of course, Citizens United is a victory for everyone, for it recognizes both the right of free speech and the right of free association. The problem of some entities being "more equal" than others due to their wealth is an age-old problem that cannot and should not be addressed by violating the rights of individuals, whether they act alone or in groups.

bulgron
08-16-2011, 7:43 AM
Just like there is a 2 tiered system for any other fundamental enumerated right?

Not happening. See Citizens United.

You don't share my cynicism. What I don't understand is how you can't see how irrational the California State Legislature is when gun control is the topic at hand.

Anyway, I said they would try but not succeed. Are you seriously telling me that they won't try to create a two-tier system, either officially via the PC or unofficially via CLEO misbehavior? It's mind boggling to me that anyone would expect them NOT to do this.

You and KCBrown are both too smart to be elected. Think about what I mean by that.

I honestly don't know what you mean by that. I do know, however, that I'm too smart to voluntarily associate myself with the dysfunctional nut jobs in Sacramento.

Kharn
08-16-2011, 8:04 AM
Once everyone (with a license) can carry a loaded gun wherever they go in case of confrontation with another, what would the "better" tier offer?

yellowfin
08-16-2011, 8:12 AM
Once everyone (with a license) can carry a loaded gun wherever they go in case of confrontation with another, what would the "better" tier offer?1. Not being arrested for violation of any and all itty bitty teeny detail regulations, or suspicion thereof. "We're going to have to hold you and your weapon until we get all this straightened out" --they do that in Philadelphia, right in the middle of a very free state with a VERY clear constitutional protection on RKBA.

2. Getting it in 30 days instead of 6 months due to "administrative backlog" and other excuses.

3. 5 or 7 year license duration instead of 2 or 1.

4. Successfully passing the interview which comes before the formal application which you have to pass to get the application--the application is shall issue, the interview is decidedly not.

5. Not intensively inquisitioning character references, your neighbors, your employer, your kids' teachers, etc. with the purpose of gravely informing them that you will be "carrying a concealed deadly weapon on your person with intent to use it in case of confrontation" and asking them if they're comfortable with knowing that. If they're not, of course, no license for you because "references and peers declared them untrustworthy."

6. Accepting applications 9-5 Mon-Fri at the local PD or sheriff office instead of 1:45-2pm on the 5th Tuesday of the month on the 6th floor of a 5 story building that's 100-200 miles away from you.

7. Carrying any pistol model, caliber, and capacity you want instead of only a 2" revolver if you have Class B license or Class C license. (See example Massachusetts.)

Just like there is a 2 tiered system for any other fundamental enumerated right?

Not happening. See Citizens United.Is currently happening. See Slaughterhouse Cases. They play all of these games right now in several states. Exhibit A Massachusetts. Exhibit B Connecticut. Exhibit C Delaware. Exhibit D Philly metro area. Exhibit E New York State.

chris12
08-16-2011, 8:52 AM
California already has 3 tiers for license duration.

Also, there are a lot of CCW references still on this page http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/California_License_to_Carry_Concealed_Weapon_%28CC W%29

dantodd
08-16-2011, 9:33 AM
California already has 3 tiers for license duration.

Also, there are a lot of CCW references still on this page http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/California_License_to_Carry_Concealed_Weapon_%28CC W%29

Trying to fix every aspect of the law at once is a tall order. Possibly, after very strong pro-carry rulings, we can take larger swings but right now asking specific narrow questions is the chosen path forward.

In other words, it is probably better to work on getting EVERYONE the right to get an LTC rather than making sure that all LTC are the same duration but still denied to most residents of CA. Asking for both in the same suit is not likely to work.

ETA: although the duration is different the rights recognized by an LTC is the same regardless of the duration or who holds the license. Now, if judges could carry anywhere but "regular" folks were restricted from carrying in bars, certain restaurants etc. that would be a tiered system.

Patrick-2
08-16-2011, 1:44 PM
Not every problem we face is going to be solved with one set of legal filings. I have described our cause much like climbing a ladder: the goal at the top requires you step up one rung at a time. Each rung is a little higher than the one before it, and each takes you higher. Screw up and you might take a hard fall. We are still climbing the early rungs.

I agree that California and Maryland and New York will try various scriptures to deny the right in fact, while claiming they have done no such thing. But these tricks have all been played in the past. This is not the first right to be so assailed. It won't be the last.

The absolute most important thing you need to watch is the Court's application of First Amendment parallels to this right. With that comes a highly tested and strongly principled amount of jurisprudence. It cannot be a perfect fit, but to the extent it informs judges and steers solutions, it is the most critical element of the intellectual offensive, outside of strong people doing principled things.

States may try to deny; municipalities may harass; prohibitionists will throw up blockades. With First Amendment principles on our side, they will all mostly fail. Prohibition dressed up as 'regulation' has been tried many, many times. Even today it is attempted. In almost every case it faces a quick demise.

So I agree withe the Citizens United reference. Those examples may be more important than we think, given our near religious attention paid to the current 'big question'. There are lots of big questions. The good news is every year the answers will flow faster. As Mr. Jensen noted in his recent filing in Illinois, "The writing is on the wall."

chris12
08-16-2011, 3:23 PM
Trying to fix every aspect of the law at once is a tall order. Possibly, after very strong pro-carry rulings, we can take larger swings but right now asking specific narrow questions is the chosen path forward.

In other words, it is probably better to work on getting EVERYONE the right to get an LTC rather than making sure that all LTC are the same duration but still denied to most residents of CA. Asking for both in the same suit is not likely to work.
Totally concur. I was just adding to what yellowfin posted. Like making California Exhibit F.

ETA: although the duration is different the rights recognized by an LTC is the same regardless of the duration or who holds the license. Now, if judges could carry anywhere but "regular" folks were restricted from carrying in bars, certain restaurants etc. that would be a tiered system.
If I have to fill out paperwork and pay money more often than someone else that seems like a tier to me. Also, I believe judges can carry in court and "regular" people can only do that with the judges permission.

sholling
08-16-2011, 3:39 PM
California already has 3 tiers for license duration.

Also, there are a lot of CCW references still on this page http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/California_License_to_Carry_Concealed_Weapon_%28CC W%29

That's a holdover from the bad old days before the 2nd Amendment was recognized as the fundamental right it always was. IANAL but my layman's understanding is that 14th Amendment equal protection requirements should now apply in our post Heller/McDonald environment.

hoffmang
08-16-2011, 8:01 PM
You don't share my cynicism. What I don't understand is how you can't see how irrational the California State Legislature is when gun control is the topic at hand.

Do you remember the bill to completely ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? What happened to that bill?

Evidence matters in this discussion. I'm concerned that your cynicism is uninformed by facts from the current changing landscape.

-Gene

kcbrown
08-16-2011, 8:58 PM
Do you remember the bill to completely ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? What happened to that bill?

Evidence matters in this discussion. I'm concerned that your cynicism is uninformed by facts from the current changing landscape.


Cynicism is usually informed by history. And for that, it seems to me that Yellowfin's message is highly relevant.

Both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have the right to keep and bear arms encoded in their constitutions. The one in Massachusetts is useless, since it qualifies it with "for the common defence". The one in Pennsylvania, however, has no such defects: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned".


In the face of that, I think the cynicism expressed here is well-founded. But it should, obviously, not have any effect on how hard and smart we fight for our rights, only on what we expect (as opposed to hope) to gain.

hoffmang
08-16-2011, 9:04 PM
Cynicism is usually informed by history. And for that, it seems to me that Yellowfin's message is highly relevant.


You give weight to Yellowfin's commentary. Why?

-Gene

kcbrown
08-16-2011, 9:10 PM
You give weight to Yellowfin's commentary. Why?


Because he lives in that neck of the woods, and so I presume he's reasonably well-informed as to the situation there.

Of course, if you can show that he's wrong, then I'll be happy to change my stance...

kcbrown
08-16-2011, 9:16 PM
Do you remember the bill to completely ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? What happened to that bill?

Evidence matters in this discussion. I'm concerned that your cynicism is uninformed by facts from the current changing landscape.


Perhaps a better question about the magazine bill you cite would be: what do you think would happen to it today, with today's legislature?

In particular, what do you think would happen to it sans any intervention on the part of Jerry Brown?

As long as it doesn't ban law enforcement officers from possessing them, I expect it would sail through the legislature, particularly in light of the Giffords shooting.


You guys have already said, as I recall, that we're not as strong in the legislature this time around as we were last year...

hoffmang
08-17-2011, 12:01 AM
Because he lives in that neck of the woods, and so I presume he's reasonably well-informed as to the situation there
He's a recently transplant from California. Maybe.
Perhaps a better question about the magazine bill you cite would be: what do you think would happen to it today, with today's legislature?

Are you aware of which year the bill I'm talking about was proposed? Hint: Lovelle Mixon.

-Gene

yellowfin
08-17-2011, 4:44 AM
Recent being a little over 2 years in NY; it feels like a jail sentence. Combined with the prior 2 years in CA after moving there from AL it feels like hell.

I've been in touch w/ what goes on in PA and that area for the past 7 years since my wife's family is there and thus I've spent a lot of time there, and since within 20 minutes to 2 hours there's NJ, MD, DE, and CT you've gotta know about them too, and MA is only an hour or two more up the road and I'll be there this weekend. Since I don't follow pro sports, current music, or TV shows, I have a good bit of available memory for this stuff. Also as an advantage there are PAFOA and MDShooters which are HIGHLY informative and detailed, almost if not equally so as Calguns, so it's pretty easy to keep pretty well informed even from a distance.

Window_Seat
08-19-2011, 12:05 PM
Another brief, this time from the Sheriff's Association in support of the Appellees...

Erik.

dvcrsn
08-19-2011, 12:22 PM
from a fast skim--the sheriffs' brief reads like a Brady screed and is seriously overstating the limitations of Heller in claiming the right is limited to the home

wildhawker
08-19-2011, 1:00 PM
Another brief, this time from the Sheriff's Association in support of the Appellees...

Erik.

If there was any doubt...

Maybe our more-friendly sheriffs, especially those who claim to be pro-2A, can explain why they don't file an amicus of their own in support of Appellants.

wazdat
08-19-2011, 1:09 PM
Eh...

"In the home", the three words that I'm really beginning to tire of in arguments of the opposition.

I really hope that SCOTUS puts an end to this nonsense in the next session.

BlindRacer
08-19-2011, 1:13 PM
Eh...

"In the home", the three words that I'm really beginning to tire of in arguments of the opposition.

I really hope that SCOTUS puts an end to this nonsense in the next session.

I agree. We REALLY need SCOTUS to put an end to this nonsense. Sure, it was clever (not really) to twist the ruling like that for the first couple weeks afterward, but now it's just annoying, and used in the most ridiculous ways. Can't wait for a ruling getting rid of this stupid notion. I wonder what their next argument will be, and when they'll finally quit.

Rossi357
08-19-2011, 1:15 PM
It must be emphasized that the issue in this case pertains to having a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public. It does not relate to carrying or having a firearm, whether concealed or not, in one's home. It does not relate to hunters going hunting in the wild. It relates only to people who believe, albeit wrongly, that there is a constitutionally protected right to go about in public carrying a loaded and concealed firearm.

I spewed coffee on my monitor and keyboard when I read this part.

huck
08-19-2011, 1:20 PM
Another brief, this time from the Sheriff's Association in support of the Appellees...

Erik.


I think it's an interesting point they make that the bribery / cronyism perpetrated by the sheriff is illegal, but doesn't give the court the right to open up concealed carry. Or at least that's how I read it.

Untamed1972
08-19-2011, 1:33 PM
If there was any doubt...

Maybe our more-friendly sheriffs, especially those who claim to be pro-2A, can explain why they don't file an amicus of their own in support of Appellants.


I agree!


I also love their discriptions of the diversity of the state and that every county is different, hence an urban sheriff may have to consider things that a rural county doesn't.

Again.....this completely glosses over the fact that an LTC holder from a rural county can carry anywhere....including those urban counties with "different safety issues". So the Sheriff DOES NOT have discretion over who carries guns in his county......he only has discretion over which RESIDENTS of his county can carry a gun in his county or anywhere else in the state for that matter. Which seems to me to blow the "public safety concern" out of the water.

So a resident from a rural county can get a permit to carry there, cuz there is less safety concern......but they can also carry in urban counties that dont issue despite the safety concerns there.

But the resident of the urban county cant carry in his county of residence due to safety concerns there......but he also can carry in the rural counties where there is no public safety concern?

Patrick-2
08-19-2011, 2:25 PM
They are arguing - at core - social policy. Some areas just don't want "those people" exercising rights in their neighborhoods.

Tried multiple times. Failed. Let's move on.


Every time you see 'in the home', please thank whoever you pray to that the other side has put most every egg they have into a single basket. I encourage them to make that 'in the home' and 'presumptively lawful exclusion of CCW' defense. Because if we are truly right (and I believe we are), then the other side is about to have 90% of their defense abso-Smurfly crushed*.


*Anyone else think Hank Azaria as Gargamel was awesome in that movie? My toddler loved the flick...

Untamed1972
08-19-2011, 2:40 PM
Every time you see 'in the home', please thank whoever you pray to that the other side has put most every egg they have into a single basket. I encourage them to make that 'in the home' and 'presumptively lawful exclusion of CCW' defense. Because if we are truly right (and I believe we are), then the other side is about to have 90% of their defense abso-Smurfly crushed*.


It will be very interesting to see what defense/arguement they try to come up with after that.

2009_gunner
08-19-2011, 3:24 PM
It will be very interesting to see what defense/arguement they try to come up with after that.

I'm sure they would love to try Sensitive places (a LTC is valid as long as you are outside city limits).

But it has been pointed out that current license holder (judges, etc) would not be too thrilled with that.

Anchors
08-19-2011, 5:15 PM
Another brief, this time from the Sheriff's Association in support of the Appellees...

Erik.

Court go directly to the public safety mission of the organizations and
communities served by the members Applicants, particularly as relates to
the unregulated proliferation of firearms in their communities and on their
streets.

It must be emphasized that the issue in this case pertains to having a
permit to carry a concealed firearm in public. It does not relate to carrying
or having a firearm, whether concealed or not, in one's home. It does not
relate to hunters going hunting in the wild. It relates only to people who
believe, albeit wrongly, that there is a constitutionally protected right to go
about in public carrying a loaded and concealed firearm.

It is ridiculous, but I bet the appeals court buys it.

Patrick-2
08-20-2011, 4:21 AM
It will be very interesting to see what defense/arguement they try to come up with after that.

You can already see it: English Common Law circa 1680.

Right now the prohibitionists dig into this grab-bag of history to claim that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says, all because the Supreme Court pointed out that the seed of the amendment began way back in storied England. Of course, the Supreme Court did not stop there - they pointed out that the seed sprouted roots and grew into a uniquely American viewpoint. But the other side ignores that.

The English Common Law defense might become the prevailing defense for some time, because even after the right is confirmed to exist with the individual - and not some 'place called home' - there will still be arguments about other places and the people who can exercise the right. And those arguments are going to be made using multiple defenses, one of which is bound to be the English understanding of where a gentleman should carry arms - or who might be excluded from the club.

Thank Brady. They pushed the tactic and even the feds are using it now. I suspect we are going to see a lot more reference to old-school English law in the next few years. All of it will avoid the inconvenient truth: some of that law was the reason we Americans rebelled in the first place.

press1280
08-20-2011, 6:33 AM
Using the English Bill of Rights might be a winning strategy IF there was absolutely no 2A(or state analog) case law in this country to draw from. Unfortunately for them, they'll have to answer why you have a huge cache of state cases(Nunn,Chandler, and others from the 1800's to Rosenthal v. State(VT) in 1903 to Buckner and Schubert in the 1980's),2 SCOTUS passages from Dred Scott and Robertson v. Baldwin indicating public carry(although not unlimited) was indeed protected by the 2A,and loads of info from newspapers showing public understanding of the right. Once confronted by that they'll either try to confuse the court into thinking there's concealed carry and nothing else or just whine about the mythical "shootouts at every corner" scenario.

Patrick-2
08-21-2011, 5:18 AM
English Common Law may have planted the seed, but Revolution saw it grow. Ignoring that and stopping the review at pre-revolutionary texts (or worse yet...post-revolutionary English law) is sloppy homework.

The prohibitionists are trying hard. But following their line of logic takes you odd places. It's like saying that an American writ of habeus corpus is invalid in some circumstances simply because the English Magna Carta restricted it to "Freemen" - the definition of which excepted slavery, indentured servitude and those who could not pay their debts to the King or his merry men.

"But hey, look! It's written right there in 1225! Or was it 1297? You know, the parts that were not removed by the King when he later thought them annoying, or the pieces that were replaced by specific acts of parliament and then suspended when convenient. Or during war. Or riot. Or tyranny."

"Oh Hell, what were we bloody talking about, again?"

Law changes. Fundamental Rights do not.

dawgcasa
08-21-2011, 8:36 AM
What liberal progressives refuse to admit or understand is that the 2nd amendment is an explitit core enumerated right, not even an implied non-enumerated right. So how can they make a credible stand on prior historical law from another country as a method of undermining a core explicit right? Also, while progressives rail on spreading fear and loathing about how it's in the interest of public safety that they believe it's acceptable for the government infringement upon core rights ... They don't talk about the slippery slope that logic creates because of their belief in the intrinsic value of a 'beneficient' government that acts as caretaker of the public good. They won't admit that leads inevitably to tyrannical governments where government protects it's own interests above those of the individual. For example, if the courts were to rule that a 'core' individual right such as the 2nd could be critically infringed upon in order to promote public safety ... How long would it be before these progressive intellectuals figure out gun bans don't stop violent crime, and then say "hey, there's other rights we could say interfere with the governments compelling interest in preserving public safety that would actually have demonstrable results, such as protections against unreasonable search and siezure, self incrimination, imprisonment without charges, 'dangerous' speech, etc. Let's give LEO the authority to violate these rights to improve the public welfare since the government is far wiser in determining what is good for the public than individuals are.". With that we'll see the death knell of our historically unique American experiment in democracy and individual rights.

This is about a whole lot more than just the individual right to keep and bare arms. It's about the preservation or death of the entire concept that individual rights take precedence over government 'interests'.

press1280
08-21-2011, 9:39 AM
Guess when you're forced into a corner, you'll have to go to weird places to make your position wash. Remember the savage beating upon Chicago's attorneys in both McDonald(SCOTUS) and Ezell(7th Circuit) oral arguments? I'm guessing we may see a re-run of that when they try to do "only in the home" at SCOTUS. I hope they'd let the Bradys try to get some time in oral arguments and get savaged as well.

Gray Peterson
08-21-2011, 9:54 AM
What liberal progressives refuse to admit or understand is that the 2nd amendment is an explitit core enumerated right, not even an implied non-enumerated right.

Being anti-gun is not an exclusively "liberal progressive" thing. There are numerous conservatives, including some of the most powerful sheriffs in California, who do not want normal people carrying.

CitaDeL
08-21-2011, 10:02 AM
Being anti-gun is not an exclusively "liberal progressive" thing. There are numerous conservatives, including some of the most powerful sheriffs in California, who do not want normal people carrying.

Completely agree with the above- I can affirm that there are even Sheriffs who trot out their membership with the NRA during election time and profess to be pro-gun and issue LTC, who do not support carry by those with whom they have a political or personal disagreement.

Like the liberal progressives, Im sure they wouldnt want their true stance widely circulated.

rysmithjr
08-21-2011, 10:13 AM
In the same way some are working to use more appropriate language, like LTC, maybe we should also be talking about anti-2a politicians & citizens, and not limit the scope to a small fraction (liberal progressives)

Patrick-2
08-22-2011, 5:06 AM
Liberal, Progressive, Conservative, Prohibitionist...

The label doesn't guarantee anything. More Conservatives might support LTC than Progressives, but "conservative" Ronald Reagan did more to advance gun control than any other president in more than 75 years. Labels are not always accurate predictors.

Just focus on the goal and forget the labels. Make sure every politician knows where we stand.

wildhawker
08-22-2011, 6:54 AM
The right to arms is and has been found “necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty”. As in the Revolution, we shall win the day once again.

-Brandon

You can already see it: English Common Law circa 1680.

Right now the prohibitionists dig into this grab-bag of history to claim that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says, all because the Supreme Court pointed out that the seed of the amendment began way back in storied England. Of course, the Supreme Court did not stop there - they pointed out that the seed sprouted roots and grew into a uniquely American viewpoint. But the other side ignores that.

The English Common Law defense might become the prevailing defense for some time, because even after the right is confirmed to exist with the individual - and not some 'place called home' - there will still be arguments about other places and the people who can exercise the right. And those arguments are going to be made using multiple defenses, one of which is bound to be the English understanding of where a gentleman should carry arms - or who might be excluded from the club.

Thank Brady. They pushed the tactic and even the feds are using it now. I suspect we are going to see a lot more reference to old-school English law in the next few years. All of it will avoid the inconvenient truth: some of that law was the reason we Americans rebelled in the first place.

Window_Seat
08-22-2011, 10:34 PM
And another from LCAV...

Erik.

safewaysecurity
08-22-2011, 10:45 PM
And another from LCAV...

Erik.

I like how they ignore Ezell lol. They're trying to say with a straight face that this deserves rational basis and the funny things is they probably believe it with all their heart.

hoffmang
08-22-2011, 11:01 PM
I like how they ignore Ezell lol. They're trying to say with a straight face that this deserves rational basis and the funny things is they probably believe it with all their heart.

Ezell is becoming the litmus test of honesty in these filings. It should at least illicit a "but see" in a footnote.

Amusing when the Brady Campaign is more honest than LCAV...

-Gene

safewaysecurity
08-22-2011, 11:03 PM
Amusing when the Brady Campaign is more honest than LCAV...

-Gene

Not really lol. I hold Brady to a higher standard than LCAV and the LCAV above the VPC. But that's like saying I hold frog poop to a higher standard than cockroach poop. :D

Window_Seat
08-22-2011, 11:26 PM
Not really lol. I hold Brady to a higher standard than LCAV and the LCAV above the VPC. But that's like saying I hold frog poop to a higher standard than cockroach poop. :D

But the legs of the first might be tastier, though you still don't want to French kiss either of them. :eek:

Erik.

Rossi357
08-22-2011, 11:30 PM
They seem to think that Ezell is something that holds a canvas for painting a portrait.

Patrick-2
08-23-2011, 5:34 AM
Ezell is becoming the litmus test of honesty in these filings. It should at least illicit a "but see" in a footnote.

Amusing when the Brady Campaign is more honest than LCAV...

-Gene

Exactly.

Heller was more thematic in that it laid the philosophical underpinnings of the right. It left some doors open, closed others but generally proscribed a more careful approach than not.

Ezell was purely operational. It decided the case using the same philosophy as Heller (as it must), then did not mince words in its approach to handling other 2A questions. As Mr. Jensen noted in Illinois, there is but one question: does the Second Amendment implicate XX activity?

If yes, the law fails. If no, then the law stands.

Ezell is a bit more stark in its approach. The ideas of the other side live within the margins of decisions - they need the gray area to survive. Ezell makes many things black and white - and this is a scary thing for people who eventually lose their primary merits. Once lost, they move further into the margin and turn something else into their "meritorious argument". Ezell makes that hard, because the standard is quite stark: Any affront to the right constitutes harm.

The only wiggle room in Ezell is the determination of how much harm has been caused to the citizen. That is not exactly a strong place to be arguing from.


I also see it as a litmus test and have yet to see an effective rebuttal of it (other than arguing it was "just wrong"). There is not much there to spin.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-23-2011, 5:45 AM
They seem to think that Ezell is something that holds a canvas for painting a portrait.


LOL!

Still, even with that, until SCOTUS speaks "more plainly" than it has so far, the 'not outside the home' card will be played.

What they've missed is the implications of one of their own citations: Penuliar v. Mukasy 528F.3rd.603,614 (9th Circuit, 2008) (Supreme Court decisions are limited to the boundaries of the question before the court). The importance here is that 'outside the home' wasn't at issue in either Heller or McDonald. So, to claim that those rulings even addressed the issue of 'outside the home' is just a tad facetious. What really matters now though is the cases coming that do address 'outside the home.' That is where 'the rubber will meet the road' (so to speak).

Still, there are the comments in Heller that refer with approval of the 19th. cases which allowed bans on carrying concealed (Reid, Nunn, Aymette, etc). LCAV is right about all of those. INAL, but I still see the possibility that it is open carry that will be found to be the Minimum Constitutional Standard.

Which, of course, doesn't bother me.


The Raisuli

Tango-Alpha
08-23-2011, 11:01 AM
It's more like "SUPER-AWESOME!"

http://www.trendznow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Stephanie-Courtney-as-flo-progressive-300x257.jpg


Holy Crap this is shooting right past interesting and heading towards awesomeness!!!

dantodd
08-23-2011, 11:13 AM
Still, there are the comments in Heller that refer with approval of the 19th. cases which allowed bans on carrying concealed (Reid, Nunn, Aymette, etc). LCAV is right about all of those. INAL, but I still see the possibility that it is open carry that will be found to be the Minimum Constitutional Standard.

No. The ABILITY to carry will be the minimal constitutional standard. Manner can be at the discretion of the state but they cannot deny the right.

It is simply that the cases at question all proscribed concealed in favor of open because of the stigma attached to concealed carry at the time. Plus, if the minorities were required to openly carry they could more easily be targeted by the black codes etc. If they were permitted to conceal their arms it would be harder to pick out the "trouble makers."

dawgcasa
08-23-2011, 6:42 PM
And another from LCAV...

Erik.

It's truly amazing how they take partial phrases and use "...." to exclude context that provides the broader meaning of the SCOTUS decisions, to try and construct a facade that the 'holdings' were limited solely to in the home as the only location the 2nd amendment is operative, therefore in public rational basis is acceptable. Do they really believe that these judges won't or haven't already actually read the WHOLE text of these decisions and won't see through the ruse they are attempting to construct through selective omission? Seems to me the only way that works is if they think the judge is already predisposed to play along with the ruse, but that would expose a pretty big hole in a judge's credibility to play along with that game when SCOTUS painted a pretty thorough picture of the basis of the 2nd with Heller.

kcbrown
08-23-2011, 7:27 PM
It's truly amazing how they take partial phrases and use "...." to exclude context that provides the broader meaning of the SCOTUS decisions, to try and construct a facade that the 'holdings' were limited solely to in the home as the only location the 2nd amendment is operative, therefore in public rational basis is acceptable. Do they really believe that these judges won't or haven't already actually read the WHOLE text of these decisions and won't see through the ruse they are attempting to construct through selective omission? Seems to me the only way that works is if they think the judge is already predisposed to play along with the ruse, but that would expose a pretty big hole in a judge's credibility to play along with that game when SCOTUS painted a pretty thorough picture of the basis of the 2nd with Heller.

Judges don't have to worry about their credibility. They rise in the ranks based on how their political leanings match that of those in power at the time, and the latter shifts like the wind.

Real credibility* is the very last thing that anyone thinks about. Don't believe me? Then explain how Sotomayor and Kagan got onto the Supreme Court.


When we get people in the courts who have real credibility, it is through sheer luck, and nothing else. Why else do you think it took over a century for the Supreme Court to issue a meaningfully correct ruling on the Second Amendment?




* I define real credibility as the willingness to look at the real arguments and real statements, no matter whether one agrees with them or not, to honestly assess them in the context of the foundational reasoning behind the fundamental principles of the Constitution as they were understood at the time it was written, to change one's viewpoint on the basis of the best available evidence as long as doing so doesn't yield something that contradicts said fundamental Constitutional principles, and to stick to one's guns despite any peer pressure to do otherwise, as long as one's guns really are founded upon the previously mentioned things.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-24-2011, 4:52 AM
No. The ABILITY to carry will be the minimal constitutional standard. Manner can be at the discretion of the state but they cannot deny the right.

It is simply that the cases at question all proscribed concealed in favor of open because of the stigma attached to concealed carry at the time. Plus, if the minorities were required to openly carry they could more easily be targeted by the black codes etc. If they were permitted to conceal their arms it would be harder to pick out the "trouble makers."


I'm fully up on why concealed ("secret") carry was banned. Racial issues were a part of that, but that 'manly men' didn't carry secretly was also a part of things.

And I still don't see where Heller said carry could be 'either/or.' Those words simply ain't there. All I see is 'concealed can be banned' because not only are those words there, but the cases that said so were commented upon favorably. INAL, but to me, that means that even after 'outside the home' is established as a Right, concealed carry can be regulated to the point that it simply doesn't exist.

What that also says to me is that open carry is going to be the standard. Add in that enumerated Constitutional Rights can't have a permit process imposed on them, & there's a chance (good or not, I can't say) that unlicensed LOC could be the Minimum Constitutional Standard, with defined "sensitive places" being the only restrictions on where we can carry. This is the result I'm hoping for from Williams and/or Masciandaro. Because the simplest solution to both cases is to rule that the permits they didn't have just weren't needed in the first place.

Of course, I might be nuttier than candy bar. :)


It's truly amazing how they take partial phrases and use "...." to exclude context that provides the broader meaning of the SCOTUS decisions, to try and construct a facade that the 'holdings' were limited solely to in the home as the only location the 2nd amendment is operative, therefore in public rational basis is acceptable. Do they really believe that these judges won't or haven't already actually read the WHOLE text of these decisions and won't see through the ruse they are attempting to construct through selective omission? Seems to me the only way that works is if they think the judge is already predisposed to play along with the ruse, but that would expose a pretty big hole in a judge's credibility to play along with that game when SCOTUS painted a pretty thorough picture of the basis of the 2nd with Heller.


Most judges are, which is why the tactic has worked so well so far.


The Raisuli

ccmc
08-24-2011, 5:14 AM
Liberal, Progressive, Conservative, Prohibitionist...

The label doesn't guarantee anything. More Conservatives might support LTC than Progressives, but "conservative" Ronald Reagan did more to advance gun control than any other president in more than 75 years. Labels are not always accurate predictors.

Just focus on the goal and forget the labels. Make sure every politician knows where we stand.

Agree on forgetting the labels since they way liberal and conservative are thrown around today is completely meaningless. In the classical sense today's "liberals" are anything but.

Curious about the Reagan comment. My state of Florida went shall issue while Reagan was president. I didn't see Reagan take any actions as president either through executive orders or judicial appointments to hinder that. IIRC the governor of Florida at the time was the first republican since Reconstruction, although most of the good old boys in the legislature were still democrats albeit the gun loving southern kind (known as the Pork Chop Gang). Since then we've only had one democrat governor (Walkin' Lawton Chiles - the last of the old school southern democrats) and the legislature has grown steadily republican as the gun laws continue to improve for the average Floridian. I look at the more restrictive states, and they're all run by democrats in the legislature, and have been for what seems like forever. Wisconsin's a good example of what happens with a legislative change.

OleCuss
08-24-2011, 5:27 AM
.
.
.
And I still don't see where Heller said carry could be 'either/or.' Those words simply ain't there. All I see is 'concealed can be banned' because not only are those words there, but the cases that said so were commented upon favorably. INAL, but to me, that means that even after 'outside the home' is established as a Right, concealed carry can be regulated to the point that it simply doesn't exist.

What that also says to me is that open carry is going to be the standard. Add in that enumerated Constitutional Rights can't have a permit process imposed on them, & there's a chance (good or not, I can't say) that unlicensed LOC could be the Minimum Constitutional Standard, with defined "sensitive places" being the only restrictions on where we can carry. This is the result I'm hoping for from Williams and/or Masciandaro. Because the simplest solution to both cases is to rule that the permits they didn't have just weren't needed in the first place.
.
.
.
The Raisuli

I think a little too pessimistic. The courts are likely to sort it out as carry is a core right and the state has some ability to decide exactly how.

So if California decides that the state method of carry will be concealed they will be able to do so. They won't likely be able to prosecute you for inadvertent exposure of your firearm or do other utterly ridiculous stuff.

Remember to look to the core of the right - that's where controlling decisions and legislation will emanate from. Details will be disputable but the core of the right to bear a firearm ready for potential confrontation will likely be protected.

IMHO, the optimal approach for California to take is to allow concealed carry with minimal regulation. Once we've got concealed carry locked in, the 1A/2A combo will effectively eventually mean that the we'll get both concealed and open carry. If California first gets open carry I won't be quite as sanguine about our chances of getting concealed carry.

There is a lot of jurisprudence pending and while Heller and McDonald are permanent and controlling, they are also not the final word on the application of our RKBA. That final word may be decades down the road and may come from a court lower than SCOTUS (it would be based on SCOTUS opinions and would simply be unchallenged in regards to the application of the 2A).

hvengel
08-24-2011, 8:19 AM
snip

IMHO, the optimal approach for California to take is to allow concealed carry with minimal regulation. Once we've got concealed carry locked in, the 1A/2A combo will effectively eventually mean that the we'll get both concealed and open carry. If California first gets open carry I won't be quite as sanguine about our chances of getting concealed carry.

...

I think this leads to the Ohio situation where our side starts doing open carry marches and the like and the powers that be decide that perhaps they should allow shall issue concealed carry to prevent the sheeple from getting scared by the site of others being openly armed.

It wasn't that long ago that most states allowed open carry but not concealed carry so the general direction is toward having both.

Maestro Pistolero
08-24-2011, 8:39 AM
I would not be the least bit surprised if LOC is the palladium of the right. But providing shall-issue, easily attainable LTC issuance may let the states off the hook on certain time, manner, and place regulations vis-a-vi open carry. Both would be ideal, IMO: Constitutional OC and shall-issue LTC.

G60
08-24-2011, 8:57 AM
Curious about the Reagan comment.

Reagan signed the Mulford act while governor of CA in 1967, thus "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." Loaded Open Carry was legal before that.

He also urged congress to pass the Brady Bill 'without further delay' in 1991. Which they did.

yellowfin
08-24-2011, 9:02 AM
+ the 86 ban, which was a poison pill in the FOPA but he did in fact sign it and didn't push for a repeal of the poison pill itself.

OleCuss
08-24-2011, 9:03 AM
Right. Concealed pistol licenses are most likely.

So let's assume for the sake of argument that some young male or female in SoCal is given to wearing string bikinis or some other form of clothing which will not conceal more than a small portion of a firearm.

A carry license which specifies the weapon must be concealed also constitutes a dress code - and a dress code which is different for an armed citizen than it is for an unarmed citizen. So you start to run into equal protection issues as well as freedom of expression issues due to the carry license being required to be concealed.

Shall issue carry licenses which specify concealed carry just won't last very long once the right to bear is clearly recognized by the courts.

I agree that the Ohio approach might work here in California, but success would seem to imply that the intellect of the California legislature is at least in the same ballpark as the intellect of the Ohio legislature - and I'm not sure that the California legislature's average IQ exceeds that of the average cabbage.

choprzrul
08-24-2011, 9:10 AM
I would not be the least bit surprised if LOC is the palladium of the right. But providing shall-issue, easily attainable LTC issuance may let the states off the hook on certain time, manner, and place regulations vis-a-vi open carry. Both would be ideal, IMO: Constitutional OC and shall-issue LTC.

Now there is a policy that I could get behind!

.

ccmc
08-24-2011, 9:17 AM
Reagan signed the Mulford act while governor of CA in 1967, thus "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." Loaded Open Carry was legal before that.

He also urged congress to pass the Brady Bill 'without further delay' in 1991. Which they did.

Given what was going on in California in 1967 most any governor would probably have signed the Mulford Act. Also in 1967 most states were may issue. The trend has been toward shall issue since then in all but a few states, all of which are pretty firmly entrenched in democrat legislative vice grips. And that trend really started while Reagan was president.

The congress which passed the Brady Bill was a democrat controlled congress as well. The big thing on a federal level which affected all 50 states was the AWB under Clinton which Bush allowed to expire without renewal. But in states like CA you all have a modified version of the AWB in effect seven years after the federal one expired. I'd say Reagan with his judicial appointments was generally on the positive side of RKBA, and most legislator with a Reaganesque philosophy tend to be more 2A friendly than not.

Maestro Pistolero
08-24-2011, 9:50 AM
I agree that the Ohio approach might work here in California, but success would seem to imply that the intellect of the California legislature is at least in the same ballpark as the intellect of the Ohio legislatureIn Ohio there was considerably more political will, both for and against carry. Also they have a '2A' in their state constitution.

In CA it will likely take a ruling from SCOTUS that carry outside the home is no longer negotiable. If there's one thing an anti-gunner despises more than knowing citizens are armed all around him, it's having to actually LOOK at the blasted things.

LOC precludes head-in-the-sand behavior to which our opponents are so fondly attached. Wanna see an anti RUN toward passing shall-issue LTC? Get a constitutional-carry ruling from SCOTUS.

Peaceful John
08-24-2011, 9:54 AM
Right. Concealed pistol licenses are most likely.

So let's assume for the sake of argument that some young male or female in SoCal is given to wearing string bikinis or some other form of clothing which will not conceal more than a small portion of a firearm.

A carry license which specifies the weapon must be concealed also constitutes a dress code - and a dress code which is different for an armed citizen than it is for an unarmed citizen. So you start to run into equal protection issues as well as freedom of expression issues due to the carry license being required to be concealed.

Shall issue carry licenses which specify concealed carry just won't last very long once the right to bear is clearly recognized by the courts.

I agree that the Ohio approach might work here in California, but success would seem to imply that the intellect of the California legislature is at least in the same ballpark as the intellect of the Ohio legislature - and I'm not sure that the California legislature's average IQ exceeds that of the average cabbage.

Now *that* is something I never thought of! LTC equals dress code. An astonishing approach that just makes me chuckle. Wouldn't that put a hitch in the anti's gitalong!

krucam
08-24-2011, 9:57 AM
Reagan signed the Mulford act while governor of CA in 1967, thus "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." Loaded Open Carry was legal before that.

He also urged congress to pass the Brady Bill 'without further delay' in 1991. Which they did.

Machine Gun ban under the '86 Hughes Amendment was on Reagan's watch as well.

ALSystems
08-24-2011, 10:26 AM
Now *that* is something I never thought of! LTC equals dress code. An astonishing approach that just makes me chuckle. Wouldn't that put a hitch in the anti's gitalong!
I guess all we need now is a dozen beautiful women dressed in string bikinis in court asking where they can conceal a handgun when they go to the beach. ;)

choprzrul
08-24-2011, 10:34 AM
I guess all we need now is a dozen beautiful women dressed in string bikinis in court asking where they can conceal a handgun when they go to the beach. ;)

Team CGF will have no problem recruiting 'court observers' for that one....

.

Window_Seat
08-24-2011, 10:35 AM
LTC LOC equals dress code...

If this came out of a USCourts.gov or USSC holding, it would effectively give us all an option everywhere, and that would be ideal because I like LOC for those in professional uniforms, (for not just LEO & Private Security details) especially in a transportation setting (eg; Trucking, FedEx/UPS, Dominoes, Document Delivery, Subway Operator, etc.), and LTC in an off duty and/or casual clothing setting, but we could get that all day, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be a protected activity...

I would like to see both forms of carry become as protected an activity as taking photos in front of a courthouse or school, and that could become a separate issue for the courts to hash out IF the Legislature doesn't recognize it in the way that other states are doing so.

Erik.

Patrick-2
08-24-2011, 10:37 AM
I guess all we need now is a dozen beautiful women dressed in string bikinis in court asking where they can conceal a handgun when they go to the beach

Sat alongside a politician in Florida last week. She is stridently conservative, pro-2A, an NRA member and in favor of all things liberty related. Mentioned that her city still had regs on the books that ban guns from places the Florida legislature deemed acceptable. She knows that might result in $100K fines to the city, so she blanched.

The regs: hunting regulation dealing with guns on beaches. They rules are in place not as an affront to 2A, but to better prosecute those who poach endangered turtles as they hatch (they use guns to scare off those who would stop them). Still...state law is a state law.

At the end of the "technical" discussion, she asked me, "Who the hell would want to wear a gun on the beach, anyway?"

I could come up with reasonable scenarios, but honestly I just said, "crazy gun nuts wishing to prove a point."

She agreed. Expect the laws in that city to change quite soon.


All this said, I would love to see an (in)appropriately attired young lady packing heat on the beach.

Rossi357
08-24-2011, 10:38 AM
Right. Concealed pistol licenses are most likely.

So let's assume for the sake of argument that some young male or female in SoCal is given to wearing string bikinis or some other form of clothing which will not conceal more than a small portion of a firearm.

A carry license which specifies the weapon must be concealed also constitutes a dress code - and a dress code which is different for an armed citizen than it is for an unarmed citizen. So you start to run into equal protection issues as well as freedom of expression issues due to the carry license being required to be concealed.

Shall issue carry licenses which specify concealed carry just won't last very long once the right to bear is clearly recognized by the courts.

I agree that the Ohio approach might work here in California, but success would seem to imply that the intellect of the California legislature is at least in the same ballpark as the intellect of the Ohio legislature - and I'm not sure that the California legislature's average IQ exceeds that of the average cabbage.

String bikini and a Glock? Now you have my attention.

dantodd
08-24-2011, 10:50 AM
The second amendment says fairly plainly that the right enshrined is to bear arms. There is very little chance the state of California will allow unlicensed bearing of arms generally. I don't see SCOTUS havingna problem with this. California will also not opt, on their own, to make open carry the standard becuase there are too many who rekyvon concealed carry. Retired LEO, judges, executive protection, actors, etc. would make it almost impossible forth state to forbid concealed carry.

As for open carrying a firearm, I believe that right would be protected, not by the 2nd amendment, but by the 1st. Carrying openly is obviously a political statement, this was the case in Ohio and largely the case in CA.

Maestro Pistolero
08-24-2011, 10:54 AM
As for open carrying a firearm, I believe that right would be protected, not by the 2nd amendment, but by the 1st. Carrying openly is obviously a political statement, this was the case in Ohio and largely the case in CA.If a gun show isn't 1A activity, I am not sure how LOC is.

wazdat
08-24-2011, 11:00 AM
I guess all we need now is a dozen beautiful women dressed in string bikinis in court asking where they can conceal a handgun when they go to the beach. ;)

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOdZcnq3cW4tGHIUrT65bXowW5zEiPV KKWsNxzGXchTMw78E7JFA

Not a Glock, but it'll do. :D

Glock22Fan
08-24-2011, 11:01 AM
I have never seen a young (or otherwise) lady in a string bikini who was not also laden down with huge bags containing sunglasses, sun screen, chapstick, a towel, a makeup mirror, paperback novel (or magazines) and an assortment of other things. Plenty of room for a small concealed firearm.

dantodd
08-24-2011, 11:05 AM
I have never seen a young (or otherwise) lady in a string bikini who was not also laden down with huge bags

I stopped reading there

ALSystems
08-24-2011, 11:09 AM
I have never seen a young (or otherwise) lady in a string bikini who was not also laden down with huge bags containing sunglasses, sun screen, chapstick, a towel, a makeup mirror, paperback novel (or magazines) and an assortment of other things. Plenty of room for a small concealed firearm.
Too much of practical approach. :(
Besides it ruins the image of dozen beautiful women dressed in string bikinis in court.

I guess a topless bikini clad woman holding a pink handgun will suffice...
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOdZcnq3cW4tGHIUrT65bXowW5zEiPV KKWsNxzGXchTMw78E7JFA

wazdat
08-24-2011, 11:16 AM
I guess all we need now is a dozen beautiful women dressed in string bikinis in court asking where they can conceal a handgun when they go to the beach. ;)

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSKezcsIWu_oHbjJh29Y0op95GIYjevM S3uPmiQynBix88Wh7OT

Now that's a Glock!

ALSystems
08-24-2011, 11:22 AM
Great ad for Glock.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSKezcsIWu_oHbjJh29Y0op95GIYjevM S3uPmiQynBix88Wh7OT

But it would be funny to see the lawyers argue whether this is considered concealed, partially concealed or not concealed at all (the gun of course).

ccmc
08-24-2011, 1:43 PM
Sat alongside a politician in Florida last week. She is stridently conservative, pro-2A, an NRA member and in favor of all things liberty related. Mentioned that her city still had regs on the books that ban guns from places the Florida legislature deemed acceptable. She knows that might result in $100K fines to the city, so she blanched.

The regs: hunting regulation dealing with guns on beaches. They rules are in place not as an affront to 2A, but to better prosecute those who poach endangered turtles as they hatch (they use guns to scare off those who would stop them). Still...state law is a state law.

At the end of the "technical" discussion, she asked me, "Who the hell would want to wear a gun on the beach, anyway?"

I could come up with reasonable scenarios, but honestly I just said, "crazy gun nuts wishing to prove a point."

She agreed. Expect the laws in that city to change quite soon.


All this said, I would love to see an (in)appropriately attired young lady packing heat on the beach.

Since sea turtles are under federal protection federal law would trump state law. The only people even allowed to touch sea turtle eggs are certified sea turtle monitors. I know a few of them, and some of them are CWFL holders who are armed when working since most of their work takes place in the early morning or late evening on generally deserted beaches.

dantodd
08-24-2011, 1:45 PM
Great ad for Glock.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSKezcsIWu_oHbjJh29Y0op95GIYjevM S3uPmiQynBix88Wh7OT

But it would be funny to see the lawyers argue whether this is considered concealed, partially concealed or not concealed at all (the gun of course).

Is that a Brazilian Glock?

OleCuss
08-24-2011, 2:13 PM
I think Kes may need to thank me for not suggesting thong bikinis or nudists. The pictures might not have met the standards of the forum. . .

jwkincal
08-24-2011, 6:06 PM
That is a 26, no?

Now I like that model even more...

Mulay El Raisuli
08-25-2011, 4:32 AM
I think a little too pessimistic. The courts are likely to sort it out as carry is a core right and the state has some ability to decide exactly how.

So if California decides that the state method of carry will be concealed they will be able to do so. They won't likely be able to prosecute you for inadvertent exposure of your firearm or do other utterly ridiculous stuff.

Remember to look to the core of the right - that's where controlling decisions and legislation will emanate from. Details will be disputable but the core of the right to bear a firearm ready for potential confrontation will likely be protected.

IMHO, the optimal approach for California to take is to allow concealed carry with minimal regulation. Once we've got concealed carry locked in, the 1A/2A combo will effectively eventually mean that the we'll get both concealed and open carry. If California first gets open carry I won't be quite as sanguine about our chances of getting concealed carry.

There is a lot of jurisprudence pending and while Heller and McDonald are permanent and controlling, they are also not the final word on the application of our RKBA. That final word may be decades down the road and may come from a court lower than SCOTUS (it would be based on SCOTUS opinions and would simply be unchallenged in regards to the application of the 2A).


I'm not cynical so much as I am hopeful that LOC is declared the Right. Also, I fail to see why any state, much less this one, should be allowed to regulate a federal Right. After all, there isn't a Montana standard as to how I worship God, or a Georgia standard as to how secure my home & my papers are, etc. The best approach for the PRK is the same as it is for everywhere else in the USA.


I would not be the least bit surprised if LOC is the palladium of the right. But providing shall-issue, easily attainable LTC issuance may let the states off the hook on certain time, manner, and place regulations vis-a-vi open carry. Both would be ideal, IMO: Constitutional OC and shall-issue LTC.


THIS is what I'm hoping for.


In Ohio there was considerably more political will, both for and against carry. Also they have a '2A' in their state constitution.

In CA it will likely take a ruling from SCOTUS that carry outside the home is no longer negotiable. If there's one thing an anti-gunner despises more than knowing citizens are armed all around him, it's having to actually LOOK at the blasted things.

LOC precludes head-in-the-sand behavior to which our opponents are so fondly attached. Wanna see an anti RUN toward passing shall-issue LTC? Get a constitutional-carry ruling from SCOTUS.


Just about every precedent that the antis throw at us in court mentions how allowable it is to ban concealed carry. And then they add the approving comments from Heller. Which is why I'm so happy & hopeful about Williams & Masciandaro. There's a real (but slight) chance that one or both of these could give us Const. LOC by June. That's contrary to the 'CCW first' effort, but I believe you to be 100% correct that the antis will RUN to Shall Issue if that happens.


The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
08-25-2011, 4:33 AM
Is that a Brazilian Glock?


TOO funny! Just TOO funny!


The Raisuli

Patrick-2
08-25-2011, 4:49 AM
I think the courts will say that 'manner of carry' regulations are kosher, but also admit that the defendants in all these cases keep harping on how Concealed Carry is evil and able to be banned. They don't come outright and say anything about OC (except in some limited circumstances), but they leave the door open to some crafty challenges.

We fight for LTC, they fight against CC. What do they leave open in their arguments?

That said, a losing argument is just that: a loser. So at some point, not sure their arguments are going to hold water in the future any more than they do now.

OleCuss
08-25-2011, 5:30 AM
No disagreement.

But I'd note that at this time in California the clear path is to licensed concealed carry. LOC is, at this time, politically virtually impossible.

So you present California with the choice of licensed concealed carry or either licensed or unlicensed loaded open carry - and you'll get licensed concealed carry.

Eventually (more court action and several years) we'll go on from shall-issue concealed carry to add LOC (I don't know whether or not it will be licensed open carry).

Any way you look at it, the future is better.

tabrisnet
08-25-2011, 5:47 AM
Even w/o LOC being politically impossible, it's practically impossible w/o changes in property owners rights to kick your arse out for carrying in plain sight (shopping malls, grocery stores, boardwalks, et cetera)

dantodd
08-25-2011, 8:39 AM
I think the courts will say that 'manner of carry' regulations are kosher, but also admit that the defendants in all these cases keep harping on how Concealed Carry is evil and able to be banned. They don't come outright and say anything about OC (except in some limited circumstances), but they leave the door open to some crafty challenges.

We fight for LTC, they fight against CC. What do they leave open in their arguments?

That said, a losing argument is just that: a loser. So at some point, not sure their arguments are going to hold water in the future any more than they do now.

Then the question becomes what is the state's interest in restricting concealed carry. It would seem that if they can justify restricting concealed carry then non-undcover cops, judges, prosecutors, famous people and EP details will have to carry openly too. In short, completely banning concealed carry in such a way as to not run into an equal protection lawsuit is politically untenable in CA.

yellowfin
08-25-2011, 9:58 AM
Even w/o LOC being politically impossible, it's practically impossible w/o changes in property owners rights to kick your arse out for carrying in plain sight (shopping malls, grocery stores, boardwalks, et cetera)See Katzenbach v McClung. They can't exclude us from participating in commerce.

tabrisnet
08-25-2011, 11:49 AM
Hmmmm. Might that be usable to strike down various state laws that say a private property owner can post a sign prohibiting firearms?

I believe AZ has such a law.

Rossi357
08-25-2011, 12:46 PM
See Katzenbach v McClung. They can't exclude us from participating in commerce.

Stores in Nevada can post signs prohibiting guns in store, but they have no legal weight. You can be asked to leave, risking trespassing by not leaving.

dantodd
08-25-2011, 12:53 PM
Stores in Nevada can post signs prohibiting guns in store, but they have no legal weight. You can be asked to leave, risking trespassing by not leaving.

Yellowfin's point is that the store should not be able to trespass you for carrying a gun. I would prefer to see a 14th amendment EP case than further abuse of the IC clause but...

Anonymous Coward
08-25-2011, 4:49 PM
See Katzenbach v McClung. They can't exclude us from participating in commerce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung

\From wikipedia that decision was made based on the civil rights act (CRA). For the CRA to apply, you have to be discriminated because of being in a protected class. Gun owners are not a protected class under the CRA.

stix213
08-25-2011, 5:02 PM
Just about every precedent that the antis throw at us in court mentions how allowable it is to ban concealed carry. And then they add the approving comments from Heller. Which is why I'm so happy & hopeful about Williams & Masciandaro. There's a real (but slight) chance that one or both of these could give us Const. LOC by June. That's contrary to the 'CCW first' effort, but I believe you to be 100% correct that the antis will RUN to Shall Issue if that happens.


I believe constitutional LOC as the 2A standard would actually turn out to be a complete disaster, and not the win-win you think.

Firstly, if constitutional LOC became the standard, the anti's will first be able to finally claim that CCW is discretionary for good (using CCW instead of LTC on purpose, to specifically refer to concealed instead of general carry, so don't ask for $10). You'll see a reduction of CCW permits issued, not an increase.

Secondly, the anti's will go on a gun free zone campaign, getting as many businesses in California to post "No Guns" signs as possible. Which as opposed to Arizona, in CA they will get most businesses to do so, especially in urban areas. OCers will be told to leave, or face trespassing charges. After it becomes more common in CA to see OCers, the anti majority in this state will panic.

The result will be that it will become even more difficult than today to get a county issued carry permit, since there is no longer any reason to.... you can always LOC they will say, so you don't have good cause. While at the same time you won't be able to go anywhere other than the sidewalk and woods while LOCing. You can drive somewhere, walk down the street, but not enter any businesses because they will all have "No Guns" signs up.

So in the end you'll have to leave your gun in the car, and we'll be worse off than we even are today. Lose-Lose instead of Win-Win

yellowfin
08-25-2011, 5:21 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung

\From wikipedia that decision was made based on the civil rights act (CRA). For the CRA to apply, you have to be discriminated because of being in a protected class. Gun owners are not a protected class under the CRA.The protected class doctrine will be demolished.

Wolverine
08-25-2011, 5:26 PM
If LOC becomes the ordinary man's only way to carry, I can see California passing a law making it illegal to possess a firearm on private property without the expressed individualized written permission of the owner (like we have now with school property even if private). This way they don't even need to start a "No Guns" sign campaign. Naturally, as with schools now, privileged people with a concealed carry permit would be exempted.

Glock22Fan
08-25-2011, 5:27 PM
I believe constitutional LOC as the 2A standard would actually turn out to be a complete disaster, and not the win-win you think.

Firstly, if constitutional LOC became the standard, the anti's will first be able to finally claim that CCW is discretionary for good (using CCW instead of LTC on purpose, to specifically refer to concealed instead of general carry, so don't ask for $10). You'll see a reduction of CCW permits issued, not an increase.

Secondly, the anti's will go on a gun free zone campaign, getting as many businesses in California to post "No Guns" signs as possible. Which as opposed to Arizona, in CA they will get most businesses to do so, especially in urban areas. OCers will be told to leave, or face trespassing charges. After it becomes more common in CA to see OCers, the anti majority in this state will panic.

The result will be that it will become even more difficult than today to get a county issued carry permit, since there is no longer any reason to.... you can always LOC they will say, so you don't have good cause. While at the same time you won't be able to go anywhere other than the sidewalk and woods while LOCing. You can drive somewhere, walk down the street, but not enter any businesses because they will all have "No Guns" signs up.

So in the end you'll have to leave your gun in the car, and we'll be worse off than we even are today. Lose-Lose instead of Win-Win

If this should take shape, you will get even conservative gunowners such as me flaunting their firearms anywhere and everywhere they can. We will have organized rallies and fight in court any attempt to declare places as "sensitive zones." We will pick on shopping malls and peaceably demonstrate outside, until the lack of trade going through our pickets encourages mall owners to take down the signs.

I have in no way supported UOC in the past, but believe you me, I would be out there in a shot for this. We'll force them to let us keep our firearms out of sight. OC rallies that there have been so far would be nothing compared with what we could do.

stix213
08-25-2011, 6:12 PM
If this should take shape, you will get even conservative gunowners such as me flaunting their firearms anywhere and everywhere they can. We will have organized rallies and fight in court any attempt to declare places as "sensitive zones." We will pick on shopping malls and peaceably demonstrate outside, until the lack of trade going through our pickets encourages mall owners to take down the signs.

I have in no way supported UOC in the past, but believe you me, I would be out there in a shot for this. We'll force them to let us keep our firearms out of sight. OC rallies that there have been so far would be nothing compared with what we could do.

Posting a "No Guns" sign on private property in no way creates a "sensitive zone" like a courthouse or airport terminal. Private property owners are perfectly free to post No Guns signs, and tell people to leave who violate them, under threat of trespassing.

There won't be enough gun activists to shut down traffic at enough businesses to make a serious dent either, plus the media will spin it as crazy gun nuts causing trouble, which will reinforce and likely accelerate the posting of No Guns signs. Also by nature of Open Carry, we won't be able to get business owners to "let us keep our firearms out of sight" while still keeping them ready for action since that would require a county/city issued permit that will be even more difficult to get for most people (out of sight means concealed carry, not open carry).

In other words.... if LOC becomes the 2A standard, the anti-gunners win, and win for keeps.

dantodd
08-25-2011, 7:00 PM
The result will be that it will become even more difficult than today to get a county issued carry permit, since there is no longer any reason to.... you can always LOC they will say, so you don't have good cause. While at the same time you won't be able to go anywhere other than the sidewalk and woods while LOCing. You can drive somewhere, walk down the street, but not enter any businesses because they will all have "No Guns" signs up.


You are very wrong. Do you think judges, prosecutors, actors, politicians, executive protection details and retired LEOs will accept open carry only?

Do you think that they can be exempted from Time, Manner and Place restrictions without the law being challenged and facing AT LEAST strong intermediate scrutiny?

It will never come to pass that CA chooses open carry and completely ban concealed carry. If they try to dole out the ability to exercise a fundamental right they will be in for the 14th amendment ***-whippin' to beat all.

stix213
08-25-2011, 7:36 PM
You are very wrong. Do you think judges, prosecutors, actors, politicians, executive protection details and retired LEOs will accept open carry only?


I wasn't referring to existing special classes who can already get a carry license in a no issue county. I was referring to people with no political clout.


Do you think that they can be exempted from Time, Manner and Place restrictions without the law being challenged and facing AT LEAST strong intermediate scrutiny?


Concealed means concealed


It will never come to pass that CA chooses open carry and completely ban concealed carry. If they try to dole out the ability to exercise a fundamental right they will be in for the 14th amendment ***-whippin' to beat all.

I didn't say complete ban, I said it would remain purely discretionary, and even harder to have a qualifying good cause statement. The "I'm a special person so need special treatment" carry licenses will still exist. The "I have property to defend" licenses though may go away, since you can LOC on and between your property so no longer have good cause to specifically "conceal." Understand that at that point "good cause" will be for concealing only, since you won't need anything in the eyes of the law to carry loaded anymore. Today you need a carry license just to go loaded. Getting LOC for all will considerably raise the bar for what constitutes "good cause" just because it will no longer have anything to do with a need to carry loaded, and will only be "good cause" to conceal.

Also if LOC became the 2A standard, the courts won't see concealed carry as part of the 2A protected right. We'll actually lose the 14A argument for concealed, so won't be handing out any ***-whippin' with it related to specifically concealed licenses.

ddestruel
08-25-2011, 7:42 PM
I wasn't referring to existing special classes who can already get a carry license in a no issue county. I was referring to people with no political clout.



Concealed means concealed



I didn't say complete ban, I said it would remain purely discretionary, and even harder to have a qualifying good cause statement. The "I'm a special person so need special treatment" carry licenses will still exist. The "I have property to defend" licenses though may go away, since you can LOC on and between your property so no longer have good cause to specifically "conceal."


i think arbitrary is arbitrary and equal protection applies just as it did with ex leo's trying to still possess restricted semi automatic firearms


protected class is challengable especially with citizens and according to the courts retired leos are citizens too and afforded few special privileges .... off duty leos are another battle

but thats just mho

stix213
08-25-2011, 7:48 PM
i think arbitrary is arbitrary and equal protection applies just as it did with ex leo's trying to still possess restricted semi automatic firearms


protected class is challengable especially with citizens and according to the courts retired leos are citizens too and afforded few special privileges .... off duty leos are another battle

It won't be arbitrary. They will let judges, ex cops, and public figures get concealed licenses. Everyone else will be denied, because loaded open carry would be legal so no reason to issue for concealed specifically. Understand it will no longer be a carry license, or a loaded license, but purely a concealed license. Now maybe you can win on equal protection, but I doubt it because the plaintiffs won't be similarly situated to those who are getting licenses.

Not in the public eye? denied
Not an ex cop? denied
Not a judge? denied
* All equally denied

edit: this has been spread out over several posts now. Just wanted to point out this little tangent here is about if LOC specifically became the SCOTUS declared 2A standard, and how that would affect CA carry and licensing.

Gray Peterson
08-25-2011, 7:50 PM
The protected class doctrine will be demolished.

My friend, you are more likely to have gun ownership status to be a protected class than the "protected class doctrine" be eliminated. A unanimous Supreme Court in 1993 already ruled against your line of thinking, called Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6356850277412073701&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

sighere
08-25-2011, 8:25 PM
I believe constitutional LOC as the 2A standard would actually turn out to be a complete disaster, and not the win-win you think.

Firstly, if constitutional LOC became the standard, the anti's will first be able to finally claim that CCW is discretionary for good (using CCW instead of LTC on purpose, to specifically refer to concealed instead of general carry, so don't ask for $10). You'll see a reduction of CCW permits issued, not an increase.

Secondly, the anti's will go on a gun free zone campaign, getting as many businesses in California to post "No Guns" signs as possible. Which as opposed to Arizona, in CA they will get most businesses to do so, especially in urban areas. OCers will be told to leave, or face trespassing charges. After it becomes more common in CA to see OCers, the anti majority in this state will panic.

The result will be that it will become even more difficult than today to get a county issued carry permit, since there is no longer any reason to.... you can always LOC they will say, so you don't have good cause. While at the same time you won't be able to go anywhere other than the sidewalk and woods while LOCing. You can drive somewhere, walk down the street, but not enter any businesses because they will all have "No Guns" signs up.

So in the end you'll have to leave your gun in the car, and we'll be worse off than we even are today. Lose-Lose instead of Win-Win

I'm with you on this. What ever happened to the saying "discretion is the better part of valor" Our society is too jumpy to see guns on everyone's hip. Ok, maybe an exception for beautiful women in thong bikinis... but that's it!

VegasND
08-25-2011, 8:40 PM
What makes you think '...society is too jumpy to see guns...'?
People carry openly in other states and the people don't go nuts.

One of my funnier observations: I was in a WalMart in Surprise, Az a few years ago when the other patrons jumped on a couple with an accent (NY) because they criticized a man for open carrying. I loved seeing the little blue haired lady on her electric cart telling them to shut up and go back where they came from because he had every right to do that.
I'm with you on this. What ever happened to the saying "discretion is the better part of valor" Our society is too jumpy to see guns on everyone's hip. Ok, maybe an exception for beautiful women in thong bikinis... but that's it!

Rossi357
08-25-2011, 10:09 PM
Our society is too jumpy to see guns on everyone's hip

Were you carrying somewhere and witnessed people running off screaming at the sight of your gun.
I have been UOC'ing for almost 2 years and never saw anything like that. Most people don't notice and the ones that do go on about their business with nothing more than a look. A few approach and ask questions about it. Even fewer call the police. I have been (e)check 5 time since I started.

kcbrown
08-25-2011, 10:55 PM
It won't be arbitrary. They will let judges, ex cops, and public figures get concealed licenses. Everyone else will be denied, because loaded open carry would be legal so no reason to issue for concealed specifically. Understand it will no longer be a carry license, or a loaded license, but purely a concealed license. Now maybe you can win on equal protection, but I doubt it because the plaintiffs won't be similarly situated to those who are getting licenses.

Not in the public eye? denied
Not an ex cop? denied
Not a judge? denied
* All equally denied


Yep. This. You can bank on it.

Good luck with that "equal protection" suit. Guess who's going to be deciding it? Yep: judges -- the very people who would benefit from the law standing.

hoffmang
08-25-2011, 11:22 PM
Yep. This. You can bank on it.

Good luck with that "equal protection" suit. Guess who's going to be deciding it? Yep: judges -- the very people who would benefit from the law standing.

That cuts both ways - far more than you think it does.

-Gene

kcbrown
08-25-2011, 11:34 PM
That cuts both ways - far more than you think it does.


Examples, please?

Judges will protect their own even if it means giving everyone else more freedom, of course, but for a law such as the hypothetical one being discussed here, no such thing will be necessary. So the only reason the judge would have to strike the law would be if he believes one of the exempt classes shouldn't have privileged status, and he'd have to weigh that against the lure of keeping judges in a class "above" the rest of the people. I very much doubt the judges in the courts at the 9th Circuit or below will have such a belief -- they will probably agree with the legislature (the 9th Circuit certainly does, enough that it neutered strict scrutiny in deference to the legislature in their Nordyke opinion).

Fortunately for us, that changes a bit once you get outside of the 9th Circuit, but is there any reason to believe that the case would ever get beyond that? Why would the Supreme Court even take on such a case? After all, that the majority of private property owners in California don't want people carrying guns openly on their property is of little to no concern to the Supreme Court...

bulgron
08-25-2011, 11:37 PM
Why would the Supreme Court even take on such a case?

Because it's the right thing to do?

kcbrown
08-25-2011, 11:46 PM
Because it's the right thing to do?

As tempting as it is to believe that they might do so for that reason, I'm not quite at the point where I'm convinced that such a thing is much of a driving force behind them. This is, after all, substantially the same court that gave us Kelo.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-26-2011, 4:50 AM
I believe constitutional LOC as the 2A standard would actually turn out to be a complete disaster, and not the win-win you think.

Firstly, if constitutional LOC became the standard, the anti's will first be able to finally claim that CCW is discretionary for good (using CCW instead of LTC on purpose, to specifically refer to concealed instead of general carry, so don't ask for $10). You'll see a reduction of CCW permits issued, not an increase.

Secondly, the anti's will go on a gun free zone campaign, getting as many businesses in California to post "No Guns" signs as possible. Which as opposed to Arizona, in CA they will get most businesses to do so, especially in urban areas. OCers will be told to leave, or face trespassing charges. After it becomes more common in CA to see OCers, the anti majority in this state will panic.

The result will be that it will become even more difficult than today to get a county issued carry permit, since there is no longer any reason to.... you can always LOC they will say, so you don't have good cause. While at the same time you won't be able to go anywhere other than the sidewalk and woods while LOCing. You can drive somewhere, walk down the street, but not enter any businesses because they will all have "No Guns" signs up.

So in the end you'll have to leave your gun in the car, and we'll be worse off than we even are today. Lose-Lose instead of Win-Win


I think not. The best way to predict what will happen is to take a look at what has happened. And there is some actual history here to be looked at.

In addition to the experience of Rossi357 & other solitary UOCers, there are the examples of LOC events. We are changing minds. Those who oppose freedom fear these events because we are changing minds. So, it won't be "all" or even "most" businesses that hang 'no gun' signs.

In addition, there is the example of Ohio. Yes, I am aware that the PRK is not Ohio. This has been pointed out to me many times. Still, Ohio isn't that much different. When LOC became Constitutionally protected in Ohio, rallys were held & the Ohio legislature voted in a fair CCW scheme. I'm not seeing any real reason that this won't be the case here as well.

As for judges, actors & other listings of our 'betters' (or so they like to think) carrying, yes, equal protections laws & precedents will make our CCW scheme a fair one. True, our 'betters' are going to want an unfair scheme. They may even try to get one. But even the attempt isn't a sure thing. Other states have their lists of 'betters' & in those other states those 'betters' didn't even try to implement a grossly unfair CCW scheme such as you fear. Instead, they went with Shall Issue for just about everybody. I see no real reason we won't end up with the same.


The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
08-26-2011, 4:53 AM
What makes you think '...society is too jumpy to see guns...'?
People carry openly in other states and the people don't go nuts.

One of my funnier observations: I was in a WalMart in Surprise, Az a few years ago when the other patrons jumped on a couple with an accent (NY) because they criticized a man for open carrying. I loved seeing the little blue haired lady on her electric cart telling them to shut up and go back where they came from because he had every right to do that.


I fear & am always polite to little blue haired ladies on electric carts! :)


The Raisuli

stix213
08-26-2011, 9:40 AM
I think not. The best way to predict what will happen is to take a look at what has happened. And there is some actual history here to be looked at.

In addition to the experience of Rossi357 & other solitary UOCers, there are the examples of LOC events. We are changing minds. Those who oppose freedom fear these events because we are changing minds. So, it won't be "all" or even "most" businesses that hang 'no gun' signs.

In addition, there is the example of Ohio. Yes, I am aware that the PRK is not Ohio. This has been pointed out to me many times. Still, Ohio isn't that much different. When LOC became Constitutionally protected in Ohio, rallys were held & the Ohio legislature voted in a fair CCW scheme. I'm not seeing any real reason that this won't be the case here as well.




Ohio's state legislature is 60% Republican, with many Democrats also being pro-gun. Huge pro-gun majority in the Ohio state legislature. CA not that much different? If you think our CA state legislature is going to behave in the same manner, you're insane.

Also, in Ohio a loaded magazine in the car means loaded gun, and open carry in a vehicle requires a carry license. Not exactly "constitutional OC"..... This makes OC very difficult and uncommon, arguably more difficult than UOC in CA. Plus even with those restrictions, "No Guns" signs in businesses are somewhat common. Poor example

Our relatively rare UOC events, and lone wolf UOCers, are also poor examples. They aren't out in enough numbers and enough urban locations to ratchet up the anti fear high enough to start throwing up "no guns" signs. I've yet to see anyone even attempt to UOC in San Francisco for example. If it became common I know in SF the "no guns" signs would start popping up.

Plus the only legislative action as an effect of UOC in California is a proposed UOC ban - the CA legislature moved in the opposite direction from the Ohio legislature when faced with increasing open carry. "The best way to predict what will happen is to take a look at what has happened" - Yeah look at what has happened in CA, its called AB144.


As for judges, actors & other listings of our 'betters' (or so they like to think) carrying, yes, equal protections laws & precedents will make our CCW scheme a fair one. True, our 'betters' are going to want an unfair scheme. They may even try to get one. But even the attempt isn't a sure thing. Other states have their lists of 'betters' & in those other states those 'betters' didn't even try to implement a grossly unfair CCW scheme such as you fear. Instead, they went with Shall Issue for just about everybody. I see no real reason we won't end up with the same.


The Raisuli

If equal protection was going to work, we'd be using it to get everyone in CA licenses right now. The problem is equal protection only applies between applicants that are similarly situated. See Guillory v. Gates. If you aren't a judge, cop, or in the public eye, then you won't be similarly situated to those getting licenses, so you lose.

hoffmang
08-26-2011, 4:33 PM
As tempting as it is to believe that they might do so for that reason, I'm not quite at the point where I'm convinced that such a thing is much of a driving force behind them. This is, after all, substantially the same court that gave us Kelo.

So why'd they take Heller?

-Gene

kcbrown
08-26-2011, 5:44 PM
So why'd they take Heller?


Because Heller was about government infringing upon a fundamental right, pure and simple (and in the sanctity of the home, no less). No two ways about it. No ambiguity involved. No other rights hanging in the balance.

The case we're hypothesizing about here will be about government granting privileges to certain classes of people so that they may exercise their 2A rights on private property against the wishes of the private property owner, in an environment where the fundamental right itself is not being infringed (because the situation we're talking about is where LOC is not prohibited by law) and where the vast majority of the public would be forced to comply with the private property owner's wishes. Which is to say, the situation with the law in place greatly favors private property owners as regards their control over the general public's RKBA while on their property.

You yourself said that the government can enact time, place, and manner restrictions. Well, the case we're talking about is about place and manner restrictions, enacted in such a way that they apply to some people but not to others.


So how does Kelo figure into this? Simple: Kelo was about the government using its power to take property from some "less privileged" private owners and to give it to other "more privileged" (because of their relationship with government) private owners. The hypothetical case we're talking about is exactly about government using its power to give greater ability to "more privileged" people (i.e., those with a good relationship with the government), so that they are not forced to compromise their 2A rights when on private property. Among the "more privileged" people are judges. If the Supreme Court gets involved and doesn't merely uphold the law in dispute, then either they strike down the "privileged person" exemption, or they strike down the entire law. If the former, then everyone becomes eligible for a concealed LTC. If the latter, then concealed carry without a license becomes legal.

Now, in either case where the Supreme Court rules against the disputed law, private property owners lose. In other words, part of this case involves the rights of the public versus the rights of private property owners while the public is on private property.

Since the Supreme Court (and, in particular, Justice Kennedy) has already used its power to uphold the power of government to favor one private party at the expense of another through eminent domain, what in the world makes you think the Court would hesitate to allow the government to favor private property owners at the expense of most of the general public?

wazdat
08-26-2011, 6:05 PM
@ KCBrown

Originally Posted by Dreaded Claymore -
There's skepticism, and then there's Kcbrown's claims that nothing can ever get better because we'll just magically lose every challenge we make. When pressed for the rationale behind his conspicuous demagoguery, he simply references his signature, and the vague claim that "the real world does not tolerate optimism well." I don't know why he posts on 2nd Amendment if all he's going to do is take a giant dump on everything. Predictions that Nordyke will turn out well for us are not "optimism." They are what everything that has come before point to. Similarly, Kcbrown is not "skeptical." He is pathologically paranoid, and that is the nicest possible way I can say it.

I don't think you're paranoid, just a pessimist.

stix213
08-26-2011, 6:27 PM
@ KCBrown



I don't think you're paranoid, just a pessimist.

kcbrown is optimistic when its warranted (from thread "CGF: Rossow v. Merced (Carry License Applications)"):

I must say, I like how the pieces are falling into place... :43:

(might not be as fast as any of us would like, but the chess board is starting to look very good, even here).

kcbrown
08-26-2011, 6:38 PM
kcbrown is optimistic when its warranted (from thread "CGF: Rossow v. Merced (Carry License Applications)"):

Yep. I do try to go where the evidence leads.


Frankly, I don't think the hypothetical scenario I'm speaking of will ever play out, because I don't think the Supreme Court is going to bother to actually specify that one form of carry is Constitutionally preferred over another. Why would they do such a thing when they don't have to? It's sufficient for them to say that some form of carry must always be available to the public (except for "sensitive places" and other such things). It then becomes a question of what happens legislatively here in California. I don't think it's going to be politically feasible for the legislature to declare open carry as the preferred method because the general public surely won't sit still for that (even if it winds up being worse for us in the end -- the general public here in California doesn't usually think things through that way).

dantodd
08-26-2011, 7:19 PM
Bit what you are missing is that once carry is protected any time, manner or place restriction will have to pass "enhanced" scrutiny. What level of scrutiny do you think will allow a concealed weapon policy that exempts judges, politicians, executive protection details etc? Remember, Nunn and the other "presumptively lawful" concealed carry prohibitions were blanket prohibitions and not about "discretion" or equal protection.

It will be difficult for judges to carry concealed if others are denied that manner of carry. Even more so for the "rich and famous" or friends of the sheriff. There is even the possibility that this would also apply to non-undercover police.

kcbrown
08-26-2011, 8:24 PM
Bit what you are missing is that once carry is protected any time, manner or place restriction will have to pass "enhanced" scrutiny.


That is true only if the restriction is deemed to infringe upon the right at all.

And that is the real question.

If concealed carry can be banned in its entirety due to the existence of LOC, then it can certainly be "merely" restricted to "important" classes of people, because all the state has to claim is that there's an important governmental interest in those specific people having the ability to carry concealed, that interest being that it has a greater interest in the safety of those people specifically than it does in the safety of the general public. Yeah, it's discriminatory, but what judge is going to argue against that logic when he is one of the people singled out for special treatment?


I agree with you in that what you say is how things should be, but experience shows that what we think should be and what we get are almost always different. See, for instance, the fact that McDonald was decided on the basis of due process instead of PorI.



What level of scrutiny do you think will allow a concealed weapon policy that exempts judges, politicians, executive protection details etc? Remember, Nunn and the other "presumptively lawful" concealed carry prohibitions were blanket prohibitions and not about "discretion" or equal protection.


Yes, and yet despite the fact that they were blanket prohibitions (which infringe upon the right more than do prohibitions with exemptions), they were nonetheless deemed Constitutional. Meaning they did not infringe upon the right. Remember that in Heller, the Supreme Court said that the 2nd Amendment takes out of the hands of the government (including the judiciary) the power to decide, on a case by case basis, whether or not the right is worth insisting upon. That means that such a blanket prohibition can pass muster only if it is deemed to not infringe upon the right, and the very fact that the Supreme Court cites Nunn, etc., means that it, too, believes that such a blanket prohibition would not infringe upon the right in the same circumstances.



It will be difficult for judges to carry concealed if others are denied that manner of carry. Even more so for the "rich and famous" or friends of the sheriff. There is even the possibility that this would also apply to non-undercover police.

Well, that's the real question, isn't it? Judges, police officers, etc., are considered by the government to be "Important People", because the courts have consistently (particular with respect to police officers) treated them as "more equal" than lowly citizens. Why do you think the handgun roster remains in place despite the police exemption? There's an equal protection suit just begging to happen. But our guys are smart enough to not go down that road, because they know we'll lose if we try. Police officers are special, and that's that. And so are judges. And quite possibly celebrities.

If "equal protection" were so amazingly powerful, it would have been used to knock out all of the arbitrary laws that are on the books that have police exemptions. But it's not so powerful as that, and I see no reason to believe that it would be sufficiently powerful to deal with the hypothetical situation we're discussing here.

hoffmang
08-26-2011, 11:04 PM
When Kelo was brought all evidence lead to the result we got in Kelo. It was a hail mary and those who brought it knew that.

The cases you keep bagging on in the gun context and the equal protection claims have evidence that points the other way.

You're just unaware of both sets of evidence and are inserting your emotions where research should go.

-Gene

dantodd
08-27-2011, 12:30 AM
Well, that's the real question, isn't it? Judges, police officers, etc., are considered by the government to be "Important People", because the courts have consistently (particular with respect to police officers) treated them as "more equal" than lowly citizens. Why do you think the handgun roster remains in place despite the police exemption? There's an equal protection suit just begging to happen. But our guys are smart enough to not go down that road, because they know we'll lose if we try. Police officers are special, and that's that. And so are judges. And quite possibly celebrities.

If "equal protection" were so amazingly powerful, it would have been used to knock out all of the arbitrary laws that are on the books that have police exemptions. But it's not so powerful as that, and I see no reason to believe that it would be sufficiently powerful to deal with the hypothetical situation we're discussing here.

What fundamental, enumerated rights do police, or celebrities, etc. enjoy that you or I don't have? (Obviously leaving out 2A as that is what we are working to change.)

The point is that a police officer can't hold a rally without a permit. He can't practice a religion I can't? He doesn't get to assemble in ways that I can't.

Do police, prosecutors, or judges enjoy greater 4A or 5A rights? (They likely understand how to protect them better than the average joe but they simply don't HAVE more rights.)

Kharn
08-27-2011, 4:27 AM
kcbrown,
I think you're putting way too much emphasis on the courts to fix the situation.
I think the SCOTUS will probably say shop owners can post no-guns signs, just like they can post no-soliciting/skateboarding/loitering signs right now.

But, 50 years ago, shop owners could still post "no coloreds" (even after Brown v Board of Education) and people accepted it as normal. But society changed and such behavior was no longer acceptable so the signs came down and now everyone eats at the same lunch counter. We have many ways to bring about this change ourselves, the biggest one is a win in Williams or other carry case. If carrying a handgun outside the home is a fundamental right, we can make it very uncomfortable for large corporations that ban guns for customers by speaking at stock holder meetings, etc. For small shop owners that aren't worth suing individually, a string of potential shoppers walking in and handing the manager a "I would have shopped here, but you banned my handgun" business card will give economic incentive to remove the signs.

If we had 50 people in a weekend go to a no-guns shopping mall and pass out such cards to every store in the mall, I bet the property manager would have a good number of shop owners banging on his door Monday morning demanding the policy change.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-27-2011, 5:10 AM
Ohio's state legislature is 60% Republican, with many Democrats also being pro-gun. Huge pro-gun majority in the Ohio state legislature. CA not that much different? If you think our CA state legislature is going to behave in the same manner, you're insane.

Also, in Ohio a loaded magazine in the car means loaded gun, and open carry in a vehicle requires a carry license. Not exactly "constitutional OC"..... This makes OC very difficult and uncommon, arguably more difficult than UOC in CA. Plus even with those restrictions, "No Guns" signs in businesses are somewhat common. Poor example

Our relatively rare UOC events, and lone wolf UOCers, are also poor examples. They aren't out in enough numbers and enough urban locations to ratchet up the anti fear high enough to start throwing up "no guns" signs. I've yet to see anyone even attempt to UOC in San Francisco for example. If it became common I know in SF the "no guns" signs would start popping up.

Plus the only legislative action as an effect of UOC in California is a proposed UOC ban - the CA legislature moved in the opposite direction from the Ohio legislature when faced with increasing open carry. "The best way to predict what will happen is to take a look at what has happened" - Yeah look at what has happened in CA, its called AB144.



If equal protection was going to work, we'd be using it to get everyone in CA licenses right now. The problem is equal protection only applies between applicants that are similarly situated. See Guillory v. Gates. If you aren't a judge, cop, or in the public eye, then you won't be similarly situated to those getting licenses, so you lose.


You are waaayyy pessimistic. Note that AB144, even in this most rabid of anti-gun states, still hasn't passed. Things are a-changing, even here. Still, only time will tell if I'm insane or not. I don't think I am, but I won't rule out the possibility either!


The Raisuli

Maestro Pistolero
08-27-2011, 5:19 AM
If carrying a handgun outside the home is a fundamental right, we can make it very uncomfortable for large corporations that ban guns for customers by speaking at stock holder meetings, etcI've always thought that if we targeted anti-gun corporate policies by boycott their products and services that it would be effective. But it takes a noticeable dent in their margins to get their attention.

Once the GP gets accustomed to their restored freedoms, they're not going to let them go easily, and it's going to be a whole new ball game. Freedom is addictive and contagious. When the tide has truly turned in that regard, we can shame publicly held companies in the same way that they were vulnerable to shaming over discriminatory practices in recent decades.

I've yet to see anyone even attempt to UOC in San Francisco for example. If it became common I know in SF the "no guns" signs would start popping up. Not that I think 'no guns' signs are good thing, but the only reason they will become common, is because guns in the hands of law abiding people are becoming more common. Even 'no guns' signs point to a sea change for us.

Patrick-2
08-27-2011, 11:34 AM
Forget the world you want. Here is the world you are likely to get:


RKBA is not limited to the home, but some compelling interest exists outside the home in limited circumstances
Sensitive places are those where the gubbermint takes more than token responsibility for your security: if they take your authority to defend yourself, they must accept some responsibility for the outcome. This limits the places they can call 'sensitive' if only because they cannot take responsibility for all government places.
Civilian firearm carry can be restricted from private property, including merchants.
There will be no massive backlash against those who put up "no carry" signs in coastal urban areas.
Eventually some shop owners will tire of policing those who give them money. What starts as a political statement eventually becomes a shoulder-shrug "who cares?" and most eventually tire of the fight. Some will persevere. Major chains get over it and move on.
Anti-gun politicians will still be anti-gun but will move on to other issues because the big fights were won in our favor. Mostly.
The federal legislature will step in and set some new national rules on carry, sales and transport of firearms that supposedly comport with the big decisions. Why? Because Congress abhors a vacuum and right now there is no national carry standard.
People on gun boards will continue to lament about our sorry existence, even while they can carry a loaded firearm into a bank in Beverly Hills.


I can live with this outcome. Everybody can choose something, including the pilates instructor in LA who really does not want guns in her studio, even if stuck in a gym bag. Welcome Liberty. Living here sometimes means you get the cold shoulder for whatever fracking reason people want to give it to you. Suck it up; move on.

As I write this, the lights are flickering. I am one of those knuckleheads currently waiting for Hurricane Irene to take down our power. Last decent storm of this type (Isabelle) dropped my power for 12 days. So if I don't respond to your eloquent critique of my viewpoint, please don't think it is because I think you suck (rest assured: you do). :)

I am just camping in my own home and prioritizing self-generated electrons to little things like potable water production (I am in the boonies) and my preemie-son's heart/lung monitor.

Maestro Pistolero
08-27-2011, 11:45 AM
I will be happier when firearms in the hands of the law-abiding GP are common enough to discourage and actually stop criminals in the act on a regular basis, instead of with the frequency of lightning strikes.

dantodd
08-27-2011, 11:49 AM
Forget the world you want. Here is the world you are likely to get:


RKBA is not limited to the home, but some compelling interest exists outside the home in limited circumstances
Sensitive places are those where the gubbermint takes more than token responsibility for your security: if they take your authority to defend yourself, they must accept some responsibility for the outcome. This limits the places they can call 'sensitive' if only because they cannot take responsibility for all government places.
Civilian firearm carry can be restricted from private property, including merchants.
There will be no massive backlash against those who put up "no carry" signs in coastal urban areas.
Eventually some shop owners will tire of policing those who give them money. What starts as a political statement eventually becomes a shoulder-shrug "who cares?" and most eventually tire of the fight. Some will persevere. Major chains get over it and move on.
Anti-gun politicians will still be anti-gun but will move on to other issues because the big fights were won in our favor. Mostly.
The federal legislature will step in and set some new national rules on carry, sales and transport of firearms that supposedly comport with the big decisions. Why? Because Congress abhors a vacuum and right now there is no national carry standard.
People on gun boards will continue to lament about our sorry existence, even while they can carry a loaded firearm into a bank in Beverly Hills.


I can live with this outcome. Everybody can choose something, including the pilates instructor in LA who really does not want guns in her studio, even if stuck in a gym bag. Welcome Liberty. Living here sometimes means you get the cold shoulder for whatever fracking reason people want to give it to you. Suck it up; move on.

As I write this, the lights are flickering. I am one of those knuckleheads currently waiting for Hurricane Irene to take down our power. Last decent storm of this type (Isabelle) dropped my power for 12 days. So if I don't respond to your eloquent critique of my viewpoint, please don't think it is because I think you suck (rest assured: you do). :)

I am just camping in my own home and prioritizing self-generated electrons to little things like potable water production (I am in the boonies) and my preemie-son's heart/lung monitor.

Should TOTALLY post under stress more often, this is full of win.

I do disagree that the exercise of 2A will nor be protected similarly to the exercise of 1A wrt public accommodations but I suck so.....

ETA: My thoughts a with you and your son as you weather the storm.

Maestro Pistolero
08-27-2011, 1:07 PM
Eventually some shop owners will tire of policing those who give them money. What starts as a political statement eventually becomes a shoulder-shrug "who cares?" and most eventually tire of the fight. Some will persevere. Major chains get over it and move on.Yep. But the key to this is to get the numbers up for those carrying. As soon as the loss of business nears the double digit percentile, it will be untenable. Might not even need to go that high. Few retailers can weather a hit like that, especially in this economy.

kcbrown
08-27-2011, 2:07 PM
When Kelo was brought all evidence lead to the result we got in Kelo. It was a hail mary and those who brought it knew that.


Lemme get this straight: you think the Supreme Court made the right decision in Kelo given the available "evidence"?!?

Kelo wasn't a case about the guilt or innocence of an individual, in which evidence would be the primary determining factor on which the case turned. It was a Constitutionality question. As with Heller, the proper way to analyze it is to examine the original public meaning of the 5th Amendment, in particular at the time of the 14th Amendment's ratification.

So it is quite unclear to me exactly what "evidence" you refer to here. Just because the court has a number of prior decisions to refer to doesn't make the decision to follow in those footsteps right. One need only look at Slaughterhouse to see that.

And the rightness of the Court is what I dispute. Dantodd's claim was that the Supreme Court might take on the hypothetical case under discussion because "it's the right thing to do". Of that notion, I am deeply skeptical, and Kelo gives me great ammunition in that argument.

Kelo essentially takes the 5th Amendment and shreds it, because it sets up rational basis as the standard under which 5th Amendment disputes are to be analyzed, particularly in the context of legislative claims of "economic benefit". The Kelo decision repeatedly states that the court historically deferred to the legislature on such matters, and uses that as justification to do so again. That is rational basis. Worse, the court did so under the worst possible circumstances: the taking of someone's home. For just as the 2nd Amendment is at the height of its strength in the sanctity of the home, so must the 5th Amendment's protections be at the height of their strength when protecting the sanctity of that same home.

It is laughable to call something a fundamental right (in this case, the right of the citizenry to be secure from improper use of eminent domain) when the Supreme Court has whittled it down so much that mere rational basis is the only thing that stands in the way of infringement of it.




The cases you keep bagging on in the gun context and the equal protection claims have evidence that points the other way.

You're just unaware of both sets of evidence and are inserting your emotions where research should go.


Perhaps. Fortunately, I don't think circumstances will arise such that this will need to be tested.

But that said, please do elucidate on the evidence you refer to.

kcbrown
08-27-2011, 2:16 PM
What fundamental, enumerated rights do police, or celebrities, etc. enjoy that you or I don't have? (Obviously leaving out 2A as that is what we are working to change.)

The point is that a police officer can't hold a rally without a permit. He can't practice a religion I can't? He doesn't get to assemble in ways that I can't.

Do police, prosecutors, or judges enjoy greater 4A or 5A rights? (They likely understand how to protect them better than the average joe but they simply don't HAVE more rights.)

These are all fair points, and I think I've got some additional homework to do before I can give you a full answer.

But one example I can cite is that police now have almost complete immunity from trespassing charges, thanks to the recent rulings that have greatly reduced or eliminated 4th Amendment protections.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-28-2011, 3:51 AM
People on gun boards will continue to lament about our sorry existence, even while they can carry a loaded firearm into a bank in Beverly Hills.


LOL!


As I write this, the lights are flickering. I am one of those knuckleheads currently waiting for Hurricane Irene to take down our power. Last decent storm of this type (Isabelle) dropped my power for 12 days. So if I don't respond to your eloquent critique of my viewpoint, please don't think it is because I think you suck (rest assured: you do). :)



ROTFLMAO!


I am just camping in my own home and prioritizing self-generated electrons to little things like potable water production (I am in the boonies) and my preemie-son's heart/lung monitor.


Do let us all know how it went.


The Raisuli

hoffmang
08-28-2011, 8:47 AM
Lemme get this straight: you think the Supreme Court made the right decision in Kelo given the available "evidence"?!?

All the Supreme Court precedent pointed in the direction that the Kelo decision would be the Kelo decision. The case was a hail mary to hope to end that long line of cases. That hail mary failed and that was not a surprise to those who followed that constitutional issue before that case.

-Gene

Apocalypsenerd
08-28-2011, 9:06 AM
So once this all shakes out, I am seeing a business opportunity here:

The Carry Cafe - A restaurant that you MUST have a gun or be accompanied by someone who does to eat there.

tabrisnet
08-28-2011, 10:14 AM
Will there need to be special zoning regulations? Can it be a chain, or will it be in only one city in CA ?

yellowfin
08-28-2011, 10:38 AM
All the Supreme Court precedent pointed in the direction that the Kelo decision would be the Kelo decision. The case was a hail mary to hope to end that long line of cases. That hail mary failed and that was not a surprise to those who followed that constitutional issue before that case.

-GeneCould a better case have gotten a different result?

hoffmang
08-28-2011, 12:20 PM
Could a better case have gotten a different result?

Didn't look like it.

-Gene

Apocalypsenerd
08-28-2011, 12:41 PM
Will there need to be special zoning regulations? Can it be a chain, or will it be in only one city in CA ?

It all depends on the green my friend.

dantodd
08-28-2011, 12:46 PM
So once this all shakes out, I am seeing a business opportunity here:

The Carry Cafe - A restaurant that you MUST have a gun or be accompanied by someone who does to eat there.

That would be great and you can have ugly POS sidearms for those who come without one, just like dress coded restaurants that keep 3 polyestercblazers for patrons.

kcbrown
08-28-2011, 1:44 PM
That would be great and you can have ugly POS sidearms for those who come without one, just like dress coded restaurants that keep 3 polyestercblazers for patrons.

"No shoes, no shirt, no gun, no service!"

:D

kcbrown
08-28-2011, 1:55 PM
All the Supreme Court precedent pointed in the direction that the Kelo decision would be the Kelo decision. The case was a hail mary to hope to end that long line of cases. That hail mary failed and that was not a surprise to those who followed that constitutional issue before that case.


I started to suspect that's what you meant by "evidence" after I posted my response.

But that kind of evidence only hints at what the Supreme Court is likely to do, not whether or not what they're likely to do is the right thing. And it is just a hint. If the stare decisis in question is, essentially, anti-Constitutional in nature, then a Supreme Court which follows in its previous footsteps is very much in the wrong and is abrogating its primary duty. That is precisely the nature of this Supreme Court (in particular, Justice Kennedy).


If one is going to defend the Supreme Court's use of stare decisis, one must also defend all case law that relies on Slaughterhouse. Stare decisis can never be a substitute for proper analysis of Constitutional understanding and intent. (Frankly, I suspect you believe the Supreme Court made the wrong decision in Kelo as well)


The bottom line is that Kelo was the wrong decision, and no amount of stare decisis can excuse that. And if the Supreme Court is so willing to do the wrong thing in a case such as that (regarding the sanctity of the home, no less), then it is most certainly not a stretch to expect that they'll fail to do the right thing in other situations, such as the hypothetical one under discussion.

Apocalypsenerd
08-28-2011, 1:55 PM
We could make them carry functional "Hello Kitty" AR's.

hoffmang
08-28-2011, 11:42 PM
(Frankly, I suspect you believe the Supreme Court made the wrong decision in Kelo as well)

Yes, but I was not in the least bit surprised by that decision as all of the case law before it pointed clearly in the direction of the outcome in Kelo.

McDonald P or I was a bit different as there were only 2 data points (Slaughterhouse and Heller) and Heller's analysis meant that 2A supporters had to be outright hypocritical. Scalia didn't disappoint on the latter.

-Gene

stix213
08-29-2011, 12:17 AM
You are waaayyy pessimistic. Note that AB144, even in this most rabid of anti-gun states, still hasn't passed. Things are a-changing, even here. Still, only time will tell if I'm insane or not. I don't think I am, but I won't rule out the possibility either!


The Raisuli

I'm not a pessimist. I was just explaining how I see a SCOTUS mandated 2A outside the home = OC verdict playing out in California. I personally think that SCOTUS will do nothing of the sort. SCOTUS will say that some form of loaded, immediately accessible carry satisfies the right. That will lead to virtual shall issue carry permits, of the concealed variety, within months of the verdict.

Then you'll have more and more people carrying, and since it isn't out for everyone to see, you won't see "no guns" signs anywhere close to the same extent as if people were OCing. Anti-gun shop owner doesn't see the guns, so doesn't post the signs.

Over the following decade carrying a gun will be more normalized in CA (exactly what the anti's don't want), and that will open the door to eventual legal LOC in CA, because the voters will be more open to it. The key to getting both concealed and open loaded carry is a plurality of the voters supporting it, and you get that by getting as many voters as possible to have a gun on their person at all times - which is NOT possible with open carry.

In that scenario, the local courts will have limited influence compared to what I believe will happen if OC is the 2A right (courts say no to concealed, businesses say no to open, so you end up with nothing useful). I wouldn't call that being a pessimist. I'm an optimist, but that doesn't mean just going along with a completely foolish idea like hoping SCOTUS says LOC is the 2A standard, cause that has the potential to throw away our total victory I see us having. (concealed immediately for all, LOC for all later when most CA voters are on board and see the ridiculousness of carry laws FOR THEMSELVES - you're not going to get many San Francisco voters to try out carrying a gun if they have to OC in front of all their anti-gun liberal friends, and can't meet them at Peet's Coffee cause there is a No Guns sign, so they will never see for themselves how restrictive, retarded, and useless gun laws are, and carrying a gun will always remain something for hicks and criminals in their minds, which is EXACTLY what they think right now)

You don't have Sonoma Sponsor X 8 in your signature being a pessimist. I really think we're going to win everything... concealed carry, open carry, get rid of the semi-auto ban. Winning though requires getting a loaded defensive gun into as many California pockets as possible, with as little on the street exposure as possible, with as little local court influence as possible, so as to convince as many voters as possible that carrying a gun in any manner (concealed or open) is perfectly fine. At that point the legislators themselves fight to see who can put the most pro-gun bill up for a vote, in order to stay in office - and then you know we've truly won.

There's going to be nothing worse than loosing in the Democrat primary because you're just not pro-gun enough :D WINNING!

(alright that's the last I'm going to say on this topic)

kcbrown
08-29-2011, 12:44 AM
I'm not a pessimist. I was just explaining how I see a SCOTUS mandated 2A outside the home = OC verdict playing out in California. I personally think that SCOTUS will do nothing of the sort. SCOTUS will say that some form of loaded, immediately accessible carry satisfies the right. That will lead to virtual shall issue carry permits, of the concealed variety, within months of the verdict.

Then you'll have more and more people carrying, and since it isn't out for everyone to see, you won't see "no guns" signs anywhere close to the same extent as if people were OCing. Anti-gun shop owner doesn't see the guns, so doesn't post the signs.


Yep. Agreed so far.



Over the following decade carrying a gun will be more normalized in CA (exactly what the anti's don't want), and that will open the door to eventual legal LOC in CA, because the voters will be more open to it.


This, on the other hand, won't happen. Not enough to cause LOC to be legalized, at any rate.

It won't happen precisely because of what came before. The guns are all out of sight. When the guns are out of sight, nobody notices the difference, and that means nobody changes their views. When a gun sighting occurs, the public reacts the way they always have, because they will be no more desensitized to its presence than they had been previously.

For the change in viewpoint to happen in the scenario you're talking about, you have to hypothesize some miraculous mechanism that doesn't exist.



The key to getting both concealed and open loaded carry is a plurality of the voters supporting it, and you get that by getting as many voters as possible to have a gun on their person at all times - which is NOT possible with open carry.


And that's why loaded open carry won't happen here in California. Not within any of our lifetimes, at any rate. It'll take generations for people here to become sufficiently desensitized, if it ever happens at all.

kcbrown
08-29-2011, 12:49 AM
McDonald P or I was a bit different as there were only 2 data points (Slaughterhouse and Heller) and Heller's analysis meant that 2A supporters had to be outright hypocritical. Scalia didn't disappoint on the latter.


I've read Heller, but don't recall anything that would strongly suggest a conflict between the analysis there and PorI incorporation. Looks like I'll have to go back over it again with that in mind (though if it says they're not going to touch Slaughterhouse in that ruling then that pretty much shut the door on PorI)...


Regardless, a Supreme Court that is unwilling to right its past wrongs is not one that can be relied on to do the right thing.

yellowfin
08-29-2011, 5:08 AM
It won't happen precisely because of what came before. The guns are all out of sight. When the guns are out of sight, nobody notices the difference, and that means nobody changes their views. When a gun sighting occurs, the public reacts the way they always have, because they will be no more desensitized to its presence than they had been previously.A different mechanism will be at work that is far greater than mere exposure by a glance. The real mechanism for societal change will be the increased practicality and relevance of gun ownership for more people. At present, for urbanized areas of anti gun states gun ownership is an expensive, obscure, inconvenient, legally perilous hobby and being so confines it to the interest of only 5-10% of the population and thus permanent minority status. Now, if you make it practical and useful every day where people live and within the lives they already lead, big examples being shopping and travel particularly at night, then that number will EASILY double or triple. A gun is a far different thing when it's something that goes with you to the grocery store or bank 10 minutes away every week for safety than something that goes to the range or woods 2-3 hours away a few times a year for fun--the former is vastly more meaningful to inquire about, purchase, use, etc. When open carry comes up, rather than them thinking "So what, I've seen one before", they think "Oh, that's just like Susan's."

That's why the antis fight carry tooth and nail. They're FINISHED if we get it for CA and NY/NYC.

stix213
08-29-2011, 5:13 AM
This, on the other hand, won't happen. Not enough to cause LOC to be legalized, at any rate.

It won't happen precisely because of what came before. The guns are all out of sight. When the guns are out of sight, nobody notices the difference, and that means nobody changes their views. When a gun sighting occurs, the public reacts the way they always have, because they will be no more desensitized to its presence than they had been previously.

For the change in viewpoint to happen in the scenario you're talking about, you have to hypothesize some miraculous mechanism that doesn't exist.


The people changing their views are (AKA the miraculous mechanism):
1) Those who try concealed carry, and discover it didn't turn them into a murderer, and the gun didn't go off and shoot someone else unsupervised
2) People who know person 1, who eventually tells people he/she carries. These people realize person 1 didn't turn into a murderer, and their gun didn't go off and shoot someone else unsupervised, even though they aren't ready themselves to become a person #1

The critical mass needed to change the overall view of the voter base is dependent on sufficient #1's, which generate #2's, which combined #1's & #2's must surpass 50% of the voting base. I gave it a decade, but it could be longer, and it can occur while out of sight. (out of sight encourages more #1's, because they see few barriers like "No Guns" signs, than if carry were in the open which increases the frequency of "No Guns" signs, which would decrease #1's because they would see carrying a gun as a hassle due to always having to leave it in the car)

Right now this isn't working because #1's and #2's are largely geographically isolated from the majority of voters, who approx 2/3 of live in the urban no-issue areas. I believe though if you look at other states over the past decade+ you'll actually see this mechanism playing out.

A lot of societal change can happen in a decade or so. For example the federal semi-auto ban came and went, with Obama not even having the stomach to push for it again out of fear of the dreaded voters.

Now if you want to argue that no matter how long you go out in the future, #1's + #2's will always be less than 50% of the voting base, well that's certainly a valid opinion and is entirely possible. Maybe I'm actually too much of an optimist :p

(ok now I'm really done with this topic, for realzies this time)

edit: Yellowfin has some pretty good reasoning there too.

dantodd
08-29-2011, 6:52 AM
I've read Heller, but don't recall anything that would strongly suggest a conflict between the analysis there and PorI incorporation. Looks like I'll have to go back over it again with that in mind (though if it says they're not going to touch Slaughterhouse in that ruling then that pretty much shut the door on PorI)...


Regardless, a Supreme Court that is unwilling to right its past wrongs is not one that can be relied on to do the right thing.

I read Gene's post to say that Heller leads directly to PorI incorporation and that any justice who didn't pursue that path to incorporation would be hypocritical. And, that he wasn't surprised that Scalia did just that. Of course those who simply tried to reargue Heller within McDonald also didn't disappoint.

dantodd
08-29-2011, 7:02 AM
And that's why loaded open carry won't happen here in California. Not within any of our lifetimes, at any rate. It'll take generations for people here to become sufficiently desensitized, if it ever happens at all.

The people changing their views are (AKA the miraculous mechanism):
1) Those who try concealed carry, and discover it didn't turn them into a murderer, and the gun didn't go off and shoot someone else unsupervised
2) People who know person 1, who eventually tells people he/she carries. These people realize person 1 didn't turn into a murderer, and their gun didn't go off and shoot someone else unsupervised, even though they aren't ready themselves to become a person #1

The critical mass needed to change the overall view of the voter base is dependent on sufficient #1's, which generate #2's, which combined #1's & #2's must surpass 50% of the voting base. I gave it a decade, but it could be longer, and it can occur while out of sight. (out of sight encourages more #1's, because they see few barriers like "No Guns" signs, than if carry were in the open which increases the frequency of "No Guns" signs, which would decrease #1's because they would see carrying a gun as a hassle due to always having to leave it in the car)

Right now this isn't working because #1's and #2's are largely geographically isolated from the majority of voters, who approx 2/3 of live in the urban no-issue areas. I believe though if you look at other states over the past decade+ you'll actually see this mechanism playing out.

A lot of societal change can happen in a decade or so. For example the federal semi-auto ban came and went, with Obama not even having the stomach to push for it again out of fear of the dreaded voters.

The thing to remember is this. Access to a functional firearm is a fundamental civil right. The open carry of a firearm is political speech. Right now, the state argues that they have a compelling interest in restricting the open carry of handguns in public because they are "dangerous." A carry win at SCOTUS takes away that argument unless the state can PROVE that open carry is an actual dangerous expression of free speech. But since every non-prohibited person can carry concealed what additional danger is open carry? Short answer, none.

Of course "scaring good people" could be tried in place of actual danger but offensive speech cannot be restricted just because people don't like it. Look at the church that offends everyone at military funerals.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-29-2011, 7:04 AM
This, on the other hand, won't happen. Not enough to cause LOC to be legalized, at any rate.

It won't happen precisely because of what came before. The guns are all out of sight. When the guns are out of sight, nobody notices the difference, and that means nobody changes their views. When a gun sighting occurs, the public reacts the way they always have, because they will be no more desensitized to its presence than they had been previously.

For the change in viewpoint to happen in the scenario you're talking about, you have to hypothesize some miraculous mechanism that doesn't exist.




And that's why loaded open carry won't happen here in California. Not within any of our lifetimes, at any rate. It'll take generations for people here to become sufficiently desensitized, if it ever happens at all.


I must agree. "Out of sight = out of mind" & that equals the majority of voters (ESP in this state) will never vote, or cause their reps to vote, for LOC. If LOC does come to the PRK, it will only be because SCOTUS votes to make it so. I'm not as good as reading the teat leaves as Gene is, but as I read what was actually said in Heller/McDonald, that's exactly what they're going to do. Likely with Williams and/or Masciandaro.

Which I still think will be a real good thing. Yes, the Ohio experience wasn't perfect. And yes, the PRK isn't Ohio, but if (when) SCOTUS does speak "more plainly"& if (when) LOC is restored as the Right it once was (strict scrutiny required, etc) all the impediments to doing so (GFSZ, etc) will fall like autumn leaves. Then the restoration of the "Gun Culture" can really begin. Then comments of "just like Susan's" will be heard because it is then that all & sundry will be able to see what Susan carries.


Now if you want to argue that no matter how long you go out in the future, #1's + #2's will always be less than 50% of the voting base, well that's certainly a valid opinion and is entirely possible. Maybe I'm actually too much of an optimist :p

(ok now I'm really done with this topic, for realzies this time)

edit: Yellowfin has some pretty good reasoning there too.

I doubt that the PRK will stop being the PRK. Which is why I doubt we (the gun culture) will ever be greater than 50% of the voters. That's certainly going to be the case as long as guns remain out of sight.


The Raisuli

Maestro Pistolero
08-29-2011, 8:25 AM
I do believe we shouldn't underestimate the sea-change that will occur when fence-sitters get a real taste of autonomy re: their personal safety. That flavor of liberty is transformative. Even folks who didn't think they were insecure about their safety are smitten with how comforting it is to know that you have equal footing with the most vicious criminal.

It's kind of like when I finally got a nice fire-safe and bolted it into the cement. When I arranged my guns in there and closed the door for the first time, I felt tremendous and immediate relief from worry that I never even realized I was carrying around with me.

Real liberty is addictive and contagious. It transforms the human spirit. That's what our founders knew and and that's the miraculous mechanism of which you speak.

Scarecrow Repair
08-29-2011, 9:05 AM
Regardless, a Supreme Court that is unwilling to right its past wrongs is not one that can be relied on to do the right thing.

Courts in general, and including the Supreme Court, have shown themselves more than happy to find for elasticity in the law where they want to find it. It's pretty discouraging to realize so many judges are no more able to stick to the law than the more run-of-the-mill politicians.

hvengel
08-29-2011, 9:23 AM
snip

It won't happen precisely because of what came before. The guns are all out of sight. When the guns are out of sight, nobody notices the difference, and that means nobody changes their views. When a gun sighting occurs, the public reacts the way they always have, because they will be no more desensitized to its presence than they had been previously.

I don't get this. We see this type of comment all of the time here but I don't see any proof that it is true. My experience is that when someone "prints" in public that people mostly don't notice. For example a few years ago I was at a meeting of the local HAM club with about 400 people in attendance many of them attending for the first time (IE they were strangers). A person sitting in the row ahead of me was armed and his sweater had ridden up and the gun was completely exposed. Dozens of people saw the gun and guess what? Nothing happened, the police were NOT called, no one said a word, nada, zero, zilch. It was a total non-event.

Yes there are people who do freak out when they see a gun but most do not. So this is not an issue with "the public" but rather with a few gun phobic individuals. I personally believe that projecting the issues that a few individuals have with guns on "the public" is a mistake that can lead to incorrect conclusions about how we should go about things.