View Single Post
Old 05-19-2013, 11:07 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,343
iTrader: 5 / 100%

Originally Posted by flyonwall View Post
In about 44 States there is no issue, they have Constitutional carry or shall issue. We are in the minority of those being infringed on a national scale and so it will take several circuit splits before we will have cert granted. Whatever the 9th says this summer we will have that split and cert next year. Nichols is not a loaded open carry case and there is no legal basis for a loaded open carry federal case. Referring to loaded open carry as low hanging fruit makes no legal sense. The cases pending in the 9th are each a little different and the new ones challenge residency, not good cause, but follow a similar pattern because legally there is only one pattern that can be applied. Gura isn't a genius, he has just read the law and had a client willing to pay him to file a case. Your feelings about how thinks should be in this oppressed state have nothing to do with actual constitutional jurisprudence and filing a loaded open carry case makes as much sense as Peterson's Colorado case- doomed from the start.
I really do appreciate your learned and very well reasoned input but I have to respectfully disagree. As was made reasonably clear in the CA opinion what doomed Peterson's case was that he went after an order to issue him a CCW without simultaneously challenging Denver's open carry ban. Make no mistake I have no major problem with Colorado deciding that concealed carry must be (shall-issue) licensed as long as some means of unlicensed carry, in this case open carry, remains available as it does in most of Colorado. But we cannot accept a licensing requirement to buy arms, or to keep arms in the home, or to bear loaded arms in some manner chosen by the state any more than we can accept a licensing requirement to have children - which is not an enumerated right and which based on the number of kids that become gang members in this country has more potential to bring harm than owning or carrying a gun. As long as an enumerated right is subject to licensing then it is subject to conditions which are so onerous that they make the average citizen throw up their hands and give up. For examples I need point no further than the Handgun licensing and registration requirements in NYC, Chicago, and Washington DC where the process can take many months if not a year or more and adds several hundred dollars to the cost of exercising an enumerated right as reaffirmed by Heller to possess a handgun in the home. We would not allow cities or states to require poor women to spend several hundred dollars on training and licensing before having a child or an abortion and I don't see how it is any more constitutional to require a woman to spend several hundred dollars to obtain a license to defend herself against rape.

California should be an amazingly fertile playground for 2nd Amendment jurisprudence because practically all tools designed for self defense are heavily restricted or outright banned. Want to carry a concealed handgun? Not unless you have plenty of campaign funds for the local sheriff or a photo of him having relations with a chicken. How about open carry? Nope it's banned. Well maybe a club? Nope banned. Stars? Banned. Chucks? Banned. Combat length knife? Banned in some cities and don't get caught letting your coat or raincoat cover your fixed blade knife because that's a felony - a felony exercise of 2nd Amendment "rights".
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 05-19-2013 at 3:59 PM..
Reply With Quote