Originally Posted by fiddletown
Not until SCOTUS says so. So that's another multimillion dollar lawsuit, a bunch of years and some risk away. On the other hand, both state and federal GFSZ laws except persons with a state issued LTC.
If we get a shall issue LTC in California, we can be carrying our guns; and GFSZ is a non-issue. Then while we're carrying our guns legally, albeit concealed, even through a GFSZ, we can be working on open carry and the whole GFSZ business.
Yeah, good luck getting the GFSZ issue dealt with once it's no longer actually infringing the right
, thanks to the LTC exemptions that are in place (ETA: actually, the federal GFSZ might be possible to get struck in states which have RKBA but which don't issue LTCs, but that won't help us against the state GFSZ law). Good luck getting open carry once shall-issue LTC for concealed carry is considered by the judiciary to be an appropriate means of implementing the "right" to carry firearms at all. And good luck getting the right to carry unconcealable rifles in urban public once the right to carry handguns has been established, since self defense
is the bulwark of the right, and time, place, and manner
restrictions are perfectly valid.
We're going to be waiting a very long
time for any of those once we get shall-issue LTC for concealed carry here.
That's not to say that going for shall-issue LTC isn't the best course of action, because it may be the only
course of action that's likely to succeed. But that action will
have consequences, and it will
foreclose all those other options to us for decades
(if not for all time).
And I'm willing to make a $1000 donation to CGF if I'm proven wrong.