|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"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, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
As I said in the OP, the reasons for not taking Kachalsky are known only to SCOTUS. The approach advocated is a contingency. If unlicensed (or licensed?) LOC is the necessary vehicle to bring carry to CA, it would be wise of us to seriously consider a suit asking for such. As stated earlier, I would prefer CC, and as Nicki pointed out in the OH case, that is most likely what we would get VERY quickly with CA if we won this "contingency" case.
__________________
NRA Life Member SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club) CCRKBA Life Member Madison Society Life Member CRPA Life Member Last edited by VAReact; 04-18-2013 at 5:23 AM.. |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Exactly the point I've been making for a while now. The rest of your posts in this thread also do a nice job of shooting down opposing arguments. Well, there's always two, aren't there? Quote:
"Just so happens" is not the way to look at this. "Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad." That's from Heller. Which means that what the soccer moms prefer has no bearing on the subject. And more & more, its becoming clear that what Our Hero prefers has no bearing either. Time to change gears. Quote:
And I think that also. The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
Sholling,
Read the Woollard district and circuit decisions. The district court explicitly states it does not consider a situation where G&S is required for a concealed handgun, only MD's current situation of both methods under one permit. The circuit mentioned openly and concealed in cites to MD law and other circuit decisions only when unavoidable. Woollard capitalizes on MD's situation, and it is a "carry" case, not a "concealed carry" case. I can't think of a state that requires a permit for OC while CC is outlawed, or offers a different permit for OC vs CC, and MD is the only may-issue dual-use permit state that comes to mind. Last edited by Kharn; 04-18-2013 at 7:20 AM.. |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
FWIW I prefer CC too, but I'll happily settle for unlicensed open carry.
__________________
"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, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#46
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
I don't care what you call me, just don't call me late for dinner. Stupid Idiot will suffice, after all, it's only words. You must define something before you can understand it. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"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, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
If the standing problems can be resolved, let’s do it. Of course, unlicensed carry will run afoul of school zones, which is part of the reason why licensing cases have been litigated thus far.
However, if school zones can be dispensed with, then I hope transparent outerwear for cold weather won’t be considered concealment. That said, I still doubt that the law-and-order types on the U.S. Supreme Court will authorize common citizens to carry firearms at the ready about town without obtaining government blessing.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA |
#50
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"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, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
I don't see how you could get standing. Courts these days are acting from the presumption that all acts require government approval. There is no "open carry license" to apply for, so you cannot claim standing because you were unconstitutionally turned down for a license.
|
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club) CCRKBA Life Member Madison Society Life Member CRPA Life Member Last edited by VAReact; 04-18-2013 at 3:57 PM.. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#54
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The strategy is no G&S for LOC or UOC which comes before LCC. GFSZ will fall. The DH 5 want clean OC decision, thus no cert for Kachalsky; CC ABTF. HB&E, are nothing to fear from Mulford. OC better than NC. BTW, FWIW, IANAL. sholling is making a good argument. |
#55
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
Do the following quotes suggest that may issue is problematic? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If SCOTUS takes the case and I hope that they do it's very iffy that they will go beyond "some form of carry" and categorically state that the standard is shall-issue or unlicensed when they can take the easy way out and just rubber stamp 'some form of carry' and leave us with years of littigation to sort out what 'some form of carry' means. They might, though and I hope IL appeals but, I'm not holding my breath. In the mean time we need an unlicensed open carry case here just in case Richards fails. We just can't risk a feckless attorney closing off open carry through poor litigation while we wait for what could be several more years. Quote:
Getting unlicensed open carry in California opens the door to ending gun free school zones and other silly laws and getting strict scrutiny and backing the legislature into a shall-issue concealed carry corner.
__________________
"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, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association Last edited by sholling; 04-19-2013 at 11:21 AM.. Reason: Changed "Democrats" to "anti civil rights members" |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Using racism as a factor is a not starter argument. Yes, racism was a factor then. But now racism is not a factor. Everybody is equally discriminated against. Look, if you want to beat the racism drum, that opens up such a big can of worms you will end up confusing the issue. Every shooting that happens against white folk or children gets maximum coverage. When they happen in minority communities, little if anything is said. While gun control has racist roots, it is now mainstream, because it is no longer solely about race. And with a significant number of minority politicians and civil service employees of minority races, the race argument doesn't fly too well. But my point was about the disorder at the time, not race. And the good moral character was to prevent mexicans and orientals, homosexual whites blended with the population. And the laws were not strictly enforced.
__________________
I don't care what you call me, just don't call me late for dinner. Stupid Idiot will suffice, after all, it's only words. You must define something before you can understand it. |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"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, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
First, in IL, Democrat does not automatically equal anti-gun. The Democrats do control both houses in the IL legislature, but there is no anti-gun majority, in fact shall-issue passed both houses last year but fell less than five votes short of a veto override, so we almost have a super majority. Chicago controls the governor's mansion, and mainly votes for anti-gun candidates, but it does not control the House or Senate. Second, unfortunately a super majority is required if the legislature wants to overrule Chicago's (and a few other enclaves') Home Rule status so they cannot establish a patchwork of no-carry laws that no one can understand. The pro-gun side is trying to negotiate with a few strategic kinda-antis to get them to vote for a shall-issue super-majority so they're not packing the bill with pro-gun side projects, but if those targeted votes do not materialize, they could change the bill to include those side projects and just accept the patchwork that will exist around Chicago with time-place-manner restrictions but otherwise require state-wide shall-issue. If the legislature does nothing, the state becomes Constitutional carry when the 7th Circuit's stay expires. Third, the IL AG, Lisa Madigan? Her father is the Speaker of the House in the IL General Assembly and the head of a powerful political bloc. She wants to be governor, and how do you become governor in IL? You wait for the current one to go to jail, or you beat him in the Democratic primary. Gov Quinn is worried about the primary fight, and he and Mrs Madigan are engaged in a game of chicken. If Quinn signs a shall-issue law, or allows Constitutional carry to become effective, Madigan can say Quinn is not anti enough (remember, the governor is Chicago's pawn, so anti-gun qualifications are good resume builders), while if Madigan does not appeal to the SC, or appeals and loses, Quinn can say Madigan is either not anti enough or bad at her job (if she loses at 1 First St). Quinn needs a may-issue law to pass the legislature so he can sign it and appear anti-gun, but at the same time, that would moot his ammunition against Madigan's failure to appeal to the SC (plus the reality that the pro-gun side will not accept a may-issue bill). Madigan needed Kachalsky to be granted cert, so she could apply for cert and be held pending resolution of Kachalsky (and then throw NY's AG under the bus if they lose), but now she has to decide to go it alone or take her lumps. Honesty, I don't know which way the situation will go. The smart play for the national antis would be to leave Moore alone and just live with it, vs risking a SC ruling binding across the entire country, but that decision is solely up to Madigan and everyone knows how tantalizing the idea of higher office can be. We also saw how DC v Heller worked out when almost every major anti told DC to not appeal the DC Circuit's pro-gun decision, they blazed forward hoping to save their local ban and ended up hurting the anti-gun movement nationwide. |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
My big oversight.
Quote:
Vietnam, the counter culture, the changing roles for women and the civil rights struggle made the 60s a decade with alot of changes. The political assassinations didn't help things either. When we think of the civil rights struggle, many people focus in on the south, but racism wasn't just in the south, it was all over the country. The police forces in the 1960's weren't exactly open minded, some say that some police forces still aren't and a few departments are under federal oversight because of ongoing civil rights abuses. Nicki |
#61
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Which is one reason why I keep pushing for representation of a criminal defendant. They have standing. Quote:
Yup. The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
This is an interesting hypothesis.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club) CCRKBA Life Member Madison Society Life Member CRPA Life Member |
#65
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I disagree. In Khalchalsky, the 2nd Circuit acknowledged "outside the home," but still screwed us. Because the 2nd didn't see a contradiction between "outside the home" and 'may issue is still OK.' In addition, the manner of "and bear" matters a great deal (to some us, at any rate). If a license is enshrined as the Minimum Constitutional Standard, you can be sure that gamesplaying will also be enshrined (the 2nd Circuit clearly stands ready to so enshrine). You may point out that a license would still be required for carrying concealed & that therefore gamesplaying would still be something we would have to endure. The counter to that is if unlicensed LOC is the Minimum Constitutional Standard, then we have a way to "and bear" that does not require a license. Which is to say that we will have a way to F*** YOU! to 'the state.' Which means that 'the state' will not make the concealed carry regs too onerous. What I call the Ohio Experience. That's just the practical. The Constitutional argument is that I don't need a license to worship, speak on public issues, or to exercise any of the other myriad Rights that are protected by the Constitution. I fail completely to see why I should have to get a license to exercise this one. Finally, I agree with VAReact. If SCOTUS really is looking for an unlicensed LOC case, then we are fools to not give them one. The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Finally unlicensed open carry gives us a political tool to push to retain emergency unlicensed open carry by insisting that any bill that replaces unlicensed open carry with licensed concealed carry still allows for open carry on your own property and/or place of business, and in public during riots and/or during emergencies. In other words, you'll still be allowed to do like the Koren store owners and defend your property during riots by sitting on the porch with a shotgun across your lap, and unlicensed Aunt Marry will still be able to bug-out from riot torn areas with the family shotgun slung over her shoulder or her handgun on her hip. It should also give us political leverage to prevent the legislature from inserting printing and shirt slippage violation nonsense into the concealed carry law. The hook is that by granting licensed concealed carry on our terms - the legislature gets reasonable training requirements and no daily calls from soccer moms complaining about people wandering around with Glocks on their hips or AK47s slung over their shoulders.
__________________
"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, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association Last edited by sholling; 04-19-2013 at 12:29 PM.. |
#67
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
SCOTUS is very unlikely to hold that states must allow people to openly carry loaded firearms. This holding restricts states' right to regulate the manner in which people carry guns. That goes further than SCOTUS needs to go. SCOTUS is much more likely to hold that states cannot prohibit non-prohibited people from carrying a gun outside the home. States can then decide for themselves how they want people to carry guns in public. If a state decides that all public carry must be concealed, then the state will have a somewhat difficult time imposing constitutional restrictions on the right to carry concealed. If concealed carry is the only way to excercise a protected right, then the state cannot unduly burden the right to carry concealed. It likely would be unconstitutional for a state to say: (1) you can only carry a weapon in public if the weapon is concealed; and (2) in order to carry a concealed gun, you must pay $1,000 every year for a license to carry. Sure, some states will pass laws like this, but that's what future litigation will address. Civil rights litigation is like sailing a ship. You usually cannot go in a straight line from where you are to your destination. You have to tack back and forth. Each case brings us closer to our destination. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer the Court to hear Woollad over Moore, but a holding in Moore would still be a huge step forward.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I like it! |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You want to get A, B, and C all in one ruling. So do I. But, the Supreme Court under CJ Roberts doesn't typically work that way.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#70
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Keep in mind that if we get unlicensed open carry then we are really getting unlicensed carry "in some form". That gives us a ton of political leverage over our commissars in Sacramento when they try to move us from open to concealed carry to keep the soccer moms and media happy.
__________________
"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, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
Understanding all open carry cases will be judged by the Leonard Embody case, do you want to go there?
See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ghlight=embody http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ghlight=Embody http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=400741 |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I also agree with Gura that McDonald needed to be kept to the narrow issue of applying the 2nd Amendment to the states. But those foundations have already been built and I don't think the court wants to be involved in litigating the 2nd Amendment one baby step at a time for decades to come. I suspect that they want to limit their future involvement by wrapping much of what's left in a neat package and use that to slap down the revolt by affirming a fundamental right to bear loaded arms in public in some form, and set a standard of review and then move on to other things until the lower courts force their hand again. That's one reason why it's so important to try to establish unlicensed loaded carry in some form as the base right - it sets the standard as strict scrutiny - licensing in my opinion sets the standard at intermediate. SCOTUS won't hand us unlicensed concealed carry because there is no right to pick your own manner of carry, but the court could rule that unlicensed open carry is the base right (without losing Kennedy), but that the legislature may substitute concealed carry as long as it's open to everyone who wishes to carry and isn't otherwise prohibited.
__________________
"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, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#73
|
||||
|
||||
I disagree, in Heller SCOTUS affirmed a fundamental right to bear ready for use arms in public, and then pointedly stated that there is no right to carry a concealed weapon. That the manner of carry, concealed or open, or both, is up to the states. The Supreme Court clearly wants to firm up the fundamental right to bear arms in public, but they want to do it in a case that does not involve ordering authorities to issue concealed carry permits. If the state doesn't want a Leonard Embody type to open carry then they can respect the right to carry concealed - note the TN is a very easy shall-issue concealed carry state.
__________________
"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, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
Sholling, excellent points! I'm following what you are saying very well. However, I had a question about the following:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club) CCRKBA Life Member Madison Society Life Member CRPA Life Member Last edited by VAReact; 04-19-2013 at 2:24 PM.. |
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Or do the normal canons of justiciability and avoidance simply not apply when the Second Amendment is concerned? |
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
SCOTUS is much more likely to say, carrying outside the home is a core right. MA can then say, all public carriage must be concealed. If MA requires a license, we will attack it if the license is a PITA to obtain. If the license is easy to obtain, we attack other more irksome regulations.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#77
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Sholling:
The problem is getting a civil lawsuit to have standing to demand UOC. We saw in Heller that you need a denial or other action of an official to prove standing. With UOC, the only person you might find with standing is facing a criminal violation, and the SCOTUS has already passed up several very nicely framed criminal 2A cases (including Williams v Maryland, where Maryland's court of last resort said the Supreme Court would have "to state so more plainly" if they intended for carry outside the home to be a protected act). |
#79
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
We're not asking them to address modern sporting rifles or magazine restrictions or approved gun lists or GFSZ, but those things become winable at the appeals level if we can get an explicit or de Facto strict scrutiny standard in place. Scalia isn't dumb and if he can head off years of cert requests by answering two straight forward and closely related questions in a single case I think he'll jump on it. Quote:
__________________
"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, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association Last edited by sholling; 04-19-2013 at 4:13 PM.. |
#80
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"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, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|