Not only that, but toward the end of his diatribe he said that the "new" penal code would require locked, unloaded, not in glovebox when transporting in a car, intimating that the existing penal code does not. This is another part where Gura should have driven home the point that "transporting" firearms is not the same as "bearing" them. Opportunity missed. I think a carjacking scenario would have been appropriate...."please goood criminal sir, do you mind waiting until I unlock my firearm, load it, and then we can carry on with your crime????" All in all the point that unloaded and locked is completely worthless was not explored enough. Prieto's counsel presented all of the legal methods of transporting arms as evidence of not substantially violating the 2A right, when in fact anything other than loaded and readily at hand is in fact a substantial curtailment of the right. Gura should have jumped all over that.
Originally Posted by live2suck
Mr. Gura hit it out of the park. For those of you disappointed in his argument, what did he miss?
Mr. Whiteside was downright disturbing. He seems to have no understanding of current CA carry laws; was he just trying to make stuff up so the judges would think we have some form of carry? I could swear he told me LOC in my car was perfectly legal.
I was thinking the same thing. The way he was describing it, if you can legally have the gun (LOC at your private property and drive to the gun range) at the starting point and the ending point of your drive you could carry in your car. It made my head spin. Don't try this at home BTW LOL