View Single Post
  #144  
Old 04-25-2013, 6:12 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,613
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Perhaps, but that would put SCOTUS at odds with its own definition.

The only interpretation that is consistent with both the cases that SCOTUS cited and the definition of "bear" that they used is that states may forbid one manner of carry so long as the other is treated as a right.

To argue, as you are here, that open carry is the only method of "bear" that is protected is to outright ignore the definition of "bear" that SCOTUS itself claimed to agree with.

If that was their intent, then they would have included language to that effect. By saying that "bear" includes open or in a pocket, & then referring to the 19th Cent cases that ALL said that concealed carry can be banned, but that open carry cannot be, SCOTUS sent a pretty clear message.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
You misunderstand my statement.

My belief is that we should already have an open carry case in the pipeline, but that said case should be positioned after the concealed carry cases. I believe the fact that we don't have such a case in the pipeline to be a monumental strategic error.

It sounds like you don't regard my theory as completely unsound then.

As for timing, "after" the CCW cases is what we have now. There's not just a lot of CCW cases in the pipeline, we've had one make it to SCOTUS. And get rejected. So, is now the time to try LOC?


Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
As Mulay can tell you I was vehemently opposed to the unloaded open carry movement because I knew it was just going to trigger more legislation and cost us more of what little we retain of our rights. We argued a LOT over the subject. I'm not one of those that would open carry if concealed carry were easily available, I'm older and just prefer to be low key. What brought me into this camp is that Palmer is going nowhere for years and years, and I have serious doubts that Moore will be appealed just because of home rule and Chicago's ability to (with the help of judges) game the system for many years to come just as they have with McDonald and Ezell. Madigan would be a fool to appeal when she knows that carry licenses valid within Cook County will be kept as rare as hen's teeth for at least the next 3-5 years. She also knows that SCOTUS has rejected cert in criminal cases and now it's rejected cert in civil cases and by doing nothing she still keeps carry out of Chicago without the risk of setting SC precedent she doesn't like. In our situation the definition of insanity isn't just doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results, it's doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results - while rejecting any other approach because of what appears to be tunnel vision. It just seems foolish to reject unlicensed open carry even if it means the court rejecting our carry cases for years to come and people in California, NY, and MD are left helpless outside the home.

The other thing that's brought me over to Mulray's camp is that if we don't get strict scrutiny soon we're pretty quick going to have to figure out what to do with suddenly illegal semiautomatic rifles and shotguns and grandfathered magazines.

Its true. Sholling was VERY much against me on this. If what I predicted back then hadn't come to pass, he would still be VERY much against me.

And yes, time is very much against us. If I'm as right as the Peterson & Kachalsky Rulings suggest that I am, then the PRK will have us all reduced to flintlocks in pretty short order if we don't present SCOTUS with something they like. And they like LOC.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
This may come as shocking, but I agree with you 100%.

The only people pushing the "OC is the right" tome are people with a vested interest in OC as the right, crazy people like Mr. Nichols.

Example, with Mr. Nichols:

Redondo Beach MTD

If you're charged in the state court system, and are still charged with something, Younger abstenion applies.

Well, Mr Nichols may be crazy, but he may also be right (yes, that IS a Billy Joel reference) on the basics. That doesn't mean that I support his efforts.

As for the possibility that I am crazy, my "agenda" is that We The People have the freest possible exercise of the Right. Where we don't have to get permission of any kind to protect ourselves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
There is an interesting open carry case in FL: http://www.floridacarry.org/litigation

A FL appeals court in 1989 ruled the CCW permit was a privilege. If OC is banned, and CCW is a privilege, where's the right to bear arms?

Interesting!

Along with that, given the strong hint by the 10th Circuit, maybe we should find a good guy charged with the same thing in Denver?


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
Reply With Quote