Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-17-2013, 11:55 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,074
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
Back in Ohio around 2003/4 the Ohio Supreme court upheld the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons because the people in Ohio had the right to openly carry arms for self defense.

Prior to this ruling, I believe it was Feely vs Hamilton county, if anyone open carried, they would be arrested for public disturbance.

Gun activists mobilized and had mass open LOADED carry rallies and marches all across the state and they educated the public in the process about what they were doing.

A long stalled shall issue CCW bill was signed by then Gov Taft, a RINO republican governor within the next 6 months.

Nicki
Thank you that was exactly my point about the right to unlicensed OC leading to shall-issue CC instead so that us knuckle draggers don't offend the sheeple.
__________________
"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.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-18-2013, 5:20 AM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,498
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-18-2013, 6:51 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Hey I have my fingers crossed for Gura but we can't afford to put all of our eggs in the existing baskets. Not when the court told us what the right is and is not in Heller.

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:
Originally Posted by CalBear View Post
It's not that concealed carry is somehow legally inferior to open carry. It's that outright bans on all manners of carry are unconstitutional. It just so happens back in the 19th century concealed weapons were considered criminal, whereas today they're preferred so soccer moms don't freak.

"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:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Thanks for the information! Unfortunately it's still tainted by asking for a permit that allows concealed carry and I don't think that's what Scalia wants. I think he wants a clean open carry case. I suspect that what he's looking for is to affirm a right to at the least open carry without hoops or discretion to let us use to needle legislatures into granting shall-issue (or perhaps unlicensed) concealed carry on their own rather than have the court shove CC down their throats.

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
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-18-2013, 7:13 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-18-2013, 9:06 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,074
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
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.
Interesting, I'll try to find the text and read up, but I don't see a way around the problem that as plagued every case but Moore so far. I think the problem with Woollard will be the same as the others, it's requesting a carry license that allows concealed carry and so cert will probably be denied. The even sadder thing is once Woollard is denied the right people will very likely keep bringing nearly identical cases for identical results year in and year out until hades freezes over or one of the Heller 5 retires because by god they aren't going to bring a clean unlicensed open carry to the court. They want licensed concealed with all of their hearts and that's what they will keep going after time after time. Saddly that tunnel vision could be the death of carry in any form for average citizens in places like California.

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 and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-18-2013, 12:46 PM
bussda's Avatar
bussda bussda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,181
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
One has to look at why "Open Carry" was banned in the first place here in California, remember the "Black Panthers" circa 1967.

In hindsight, one could argue that the "Black Panthers" were in fact the "true victims" and the true purpose of the "Mulford Act" was to disarm Blacks so that white cops could continue to violate their "civil rights".

The major gun organizations probably won't touch open carry because of the "Black Panther" history that is tied to it.

I don't see how we can run an "open carry" lawsuit, especially here in California without the history of the Black Panthers becoming a part of it.

If someone can share with us how to run a lawsuit where we not only bypass the "Black Panther" issue, but also make sure the state doesn't bring it up, please share with us how we do that.

The "Black Panthers" issue is a double edged sword because in order to push for "Open Carry", we in effect have to support what they were doing pre Mulford Act.

As organizations get big in size, factions develop and unfortunately for us on this issue, some conservatives aren't exactly too happy with the Black Panthers, as a result, they probably will use their influence to stop any major gun organization from supporting such a suit.

An "Open Carry" lawsuit has a big potential to go sideways, so whoever is running the lawsuit has to be willing to be thrown under the bus and take alot of heat because the media will go on a frenzy on this one.

The Black Panthers and the Black Power movement in the 1960's were advocated "armed defense" against racist police. I don't have a problem with that, in fact I agree with that.

The problem is the media back then portrayed people like Malcolm X and others who advocated armed defense as trying to overthrow the government.

In fact when the news was doing stories on unloaded open carry a few years ago, they dug up old newsreels about the Black Panthers "storming the capitol".

Of course in lawsuits, the saying goes, present the facts of the case, not present the feelings of the case.

Open carry opens up the following questions, do the people retain the right to take up arms against oppressive government to protect their rights?

As I stated above, this is a case that could easily go sideways.

Nicki
You only lack one thing in what you wrote. In the 1960's, it was a period of significant disorder. (Remember the Watts riots?) There was a fear that a gunfight would occur if somebody fired without cause. Was the Mulford act proper from a Second Amendment viewpoint, probably no. But as a tool to prevent some idiot, either law enforcement or someone present with a gun, and to keep lawful order, probably the best situation. The Legislators did not see it as attacking the Second amendment, but in maintaining order.
__________________
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.

Want to Sell: SW357V - (LA)
Magazines (AR-15 Kits), Contender Barrels and other I am selling
.22 WMR
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-18-2013, 1:02 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,509
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bussda View Post
You only lack one thing in what you wrote. In the 1960's, it was a period of significant disorder. (Remember the Watts riots?) ... The Legislators did not see it as attacking the Second amendment, but in maintaining order.
Or,
Quote:
The policeman isn't there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.

Richard J. Daley
I love Chicago.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-18-2013, 2:01 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,074
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bussda View Post
You only lack one thing in what you wrote. In the 1960's, it was a period of significant disorder. (Remember the Watts riots?) There was a fear that a gunfight would occur if somebody fired without cause. Was the Mulford act proper from a Second Amendment viewpoint, probably no. But as a tool to prevent some idiot, either law enforcement or someone present with a gun, and to keep lawful order, probably the best situation. The Legislators did not see it as attacking the Second amendment, but in maintaining order.
Understand that it was a different time. During the 1950s and 1960s a majority of Americans supported a complete ban on handguns - an opinion that is no longer supported by a majority. You also have to keep in mind that in 1967 racism was still rampant within California, within its legislators, and its police departments. You need only to look back a bit further to see that California's gun laws have historically been all about disarming racial minorities - especially carry in any form. For example, the good moral character requirement for a CCW was I'm convinced code for white heterosexuals only and a face to face interview was important to assure that the applicant was actually a clean cut white guy. The Black Panther practice of carrying loaded guns was a direct response to getting beaten by police for being "uppity" black men that "don't know their place", and the intimidation of the legislature was a result of the nobody reigning in the police. It's just awfully hard to feel comfortable beating the crap out of someone while his friends are standing across the street with loaded shotguns.
__________________
"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.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-18-2013, 3:11 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,163
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

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.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg gfsz.jpg (98.9 KB, 253 views)
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-18-2013, 3:31 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,074
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
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.
If we get unlicensed open carry as a constitutional right then GFSZ won't hold up to a challenge. It's just not worth challenging until we can legally carry at all.
__________________
"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.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-18-2013, 3:47 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,247
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-18-2013, 3:55 PM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,498
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
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.
I think standing would be achieved by applying for an LTC and getting denied. That way, the plaintiff attempted to be able to "bear" arms by all legal means available, was denied, and then is suing for the right to bear arms in public. Not sure, but would the prayer for relief be the overturn of the Mulford Act?
__________________
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..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-18-2013, 3:57 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,727
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
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.
This. I believe this may vary from circuit to circuit but remember that Heller(aka Parker) was going to get tossed if it wasn't for Heller applying for and getting denied. I suppose a way around that is since you're having to list "good cause", you can say you're going to OC for self-defense.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-18-2013, 4:00 PM
Didymus's Avatar
Didymus Didymus is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Just outside La Jolla
Posts: 134
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
If we get unlicensed open carry as a constitutional right then GFSZ won't hold up to a challenge. It's just not worth challenging until we can legally carry at all.
To sum the thread so far:

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.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-18-2013, 4:18 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
The problem with Moore is it leaves may-issue as a presumably acceptable standard.
When was the last time you read the 7th Circuit's Moore opinion? Do you think that may issue is acceptable under Posner's analysis? Why are the bloggers on scotusblog stating there is a clear conflict between the circuits? If the 7th Circuit's analysis is compatible with may issue, there should be no conflict. Right?

Do the following quotes suggest that may issue is problematic?
Quote:
But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference.
Quote:
A blanket prohibition on carrying gun in public prevents a person from defending himself anywhere except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense requires a greater showing of justification than merely that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment, though there is no proof it would. In contrast, when a state bans guns merely in particular places, such as public schools , a person can preserve an undiminished right of self-defense by not entering those places; since that’s a lesser burden, the state doesn’t need to prove so strong a need. Similarly, the state can prevail with less evidence when, as in Skoien, guns are forbidden to a class of persons who present a higher than average risk of misusing a gun. [citation] And empirical evidence of a public safety concern can be dispensed with altogether when the ban is limited to obviously dangerous persons such as felons and the mentally ill. [citation] Illinois has lots of options for protecting its people from being shot without having to eliminate all possibility of armed self-defense in public.
Quote:
Apart from the usual prohibitions of gun ownership by children, felons, illegal aliens, lunatics, and in sensitive places such as public schools, the propriety of which was not questioned in Heller . . ., some states sensibly require that an applicant for a handgun permit establish his competence in handling firearms. A person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others. [citations] States also permit private businesses and other private institutions (such as churches) to ban guns from their premises. If enough private institutions decided to do that, the right to carry a gun in public would have much less value and might rarely be exercised—in which event the invalidation of the Illinois law might have little effect, which opponents of gun rights would welcome.
Quote:
Our principal reservation about the Second Circuit’s analysis (apart from disagreement, unnecessary to bore the reader with, with some of the historical analysis in the opinion—we regard the historical issues as settled by Heller) is its suggestion that the Second Amendment should have much greater scope inside the home than outside simply because other provisions of the Constitution have been held to make that distinction. For example, the opinion states that “in Lawrence v. Texas, the [Supreme] Court emphasized that the state’s efforts to regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults is especially suspect when it intrudes into the home.” 2012 WL 5907502, at *9. Well of course—the interest in having sex inside one’s home is much greater than the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of one’s home. But the interest in self-protection is as great outside as inside the home.
Quote:
The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.
If the AG petitions for cert., and the Supreme Court grants cert., and issues an opinion at least as strong as the 7th Circuit's opinion, more courts would conclude may issue is unconstitutional. Certainly there's doubt about each of those possibilities (especially petitioning for cert. in my mind). But saying Moore would not advance our cause in California is unjustified.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-18-2013, 5:26 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,074
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
When was the last time you read the 7th Circuit's Moore opinion? Do you think that may issue is acceptable under Posner's analysis? Why are the bloggers on scotusblog stating there is a clear conflict between the circuits? If the 7th Circuit's analysis is compatible with may issue, there should be no conflict. Right?

Do the following quotes suggest that may issue is problematic?
The quotes are very interesting, and yet the anti-civil rights members of the IL legislature responded with a may-issue proposal so they must think it will pass muster, especially since the 7th gave them 180 days to come up with a new law regulating carry and the court did not instruct them that may-issue will not pass muster.

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:
If the AG petitions for cert., and the Supreme Court grants cert., and issues an opinion at least as strong as the 7th Circuit's opinion, more courts would conclude may issue is unconstitutional. Certainly there's doubt about each of those possibilities (especially petitioning for cert. in my mind). But saying Moore would not advance our cause in California is unjustified.
Again it depends on the ruling and what relief plaintiff sought. SCOTUS is not going to grant shall-issue concealed carry because according to the Heller decision no right to concealed carry exists. Without an explicit "strict scrutiny is the standard of review" and an equally explicit "the 2nd Amendment right to openly bear arms in public is not subject to discretionary licensing or restrictions that more than minimally restrict time place and manner, unless that right is replaced with equally unrestricted concealed carry" then IL is no better off than California. So far courts are ignoring much of Heller, refusing to use strict scrutiny, and calling rational basis intermediate scrutiny.

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 and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 04-19-2013 at 11:21 AM.. Reason: Changed "Democrats" to "anti civil rights members"
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-18-2013, 5:41 PM
bussda's Avatar
bussda bussda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,181
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Understand that it was a different time. During the 1950s and 1960s a majority of Americans supported a complete ban on handguns - an opinion that is no longer supported by a majority. You also have to keep in mind that in 1967 racism was still rampant within California, within its legislators, and its police departments. You need only to look back a bit further to see that California's gun laws have historically been all about disarming racial minorities - especially carry in any form. For example, the good moral character requirement for a CCW was I'm convinced code for white heterosexuals only and a face to face interview was important to assure that the applicant was actually a clean cut white guy. The Black Panther practice of carrying loaded guns was a direct response to getting beaten by police for being "uppity" black men that "don't know their place", and the intimidation of the legislature was a result of the nobody reigning in the police. It's just awfully hard to feel comfortable beating the crap out of someone while his friends are standing across the street with loaded shotguns.
Yes, the published opinions were that a majority of Americans did not like handguns. And a preacher told me that at his congregation in the San Fernando Valley a significant number of men came to church on Sunday with a handgun in their back pocket during the Watts riots. It was more case of being for law and order then being pro gun.

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.

Want to Sell: SW357V - (LA)
Magazines (AR-15 Kits), Contender Barrels and other I am selling
.22 WMR
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-18-2013, 6:14 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,074
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bussda View Post
Yes, the published opinions were that a majority of Americans did not like handguns. And a preacher told me that at his congregation in the San Fernando Valley a significant number of men came to church on Sunday with a handgun in their back pocket during the Watts riots. It was more case of being for law and order then being pro gun.

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 want to beat the racism drum but beating the law & order drum doesn't fly either. Legislative findings of "it's bad, it's very bad" have no bearing on the constitutional right to excercise a right. But if a lower court wants to allow in legislative finding then it can to be pointed out that the finding were based on racism.
__________________
"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.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-18-2013, 8:08 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
The quotes are very interesting, and yet the Democrats in the IL legislature responded with a may-issue proposal so they must think it will pass muster, especially since the 7th gave them 180 days to come up with a new law regulating carry and the court did not instruct them that may-issue will not pass muster.

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.
Just to give you some background on the situation in IL:

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.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-18-2013, 11:57 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,132
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default My big oversight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bussda View Post
You only lack one thing in what you wrote. In the 1960's, it was a period of significant disorder. (Remember the Watts riots?) There was a fear that a gunfight would occur if somebody fired without cause. Was the Mulford act proper from a Second Amendment viewpoint, probably no. But as a tool to prevent some idiot, either law enforcement or someone present with a gun, and to keep lawful order, probably the best situation. The Legislators did not see it as attacking the Second amendment, but in maintaining order.
Yes the world was coming apart and my parents and their friends were worried about the country coming undone and having race riots.

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
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 04-19-2013, 5:33 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
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.

Which is one reason why I keep pushing for representation of a criminal defendant. They have standing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
The quotes are very interesting, and yet the Democrats in the IL legislature responded with a may-issue proposal so they must think it will pass muster, especially since the 7th gave them 180 days to come up with a new law regulating carry and the court did not instruct them that may-issue will not pass muster.

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.


Again it depends on the ruling and what relief plaintiff sought. SCOTUS is not going to grant shall-issue concealed carry because according to the Heller decision no right to concealed carry exists. Without an explicit "strict scrutiny is the standard of review" and an equally explicit "the 2nd Amendment right to openly bear arms in public is not subject to discretionary licensing or restrictions that more than minimally restrict time place and manner, unless that right is replaced with equally unrestricted concealed carry" then IL is no better off than California. So far courts are ignoring much of Heller, refusing to use strict scrutiny, and calling rational basis intermediate scrutiny.

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.

Yup.


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

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 04-19-2013, 7:51 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,163
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
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.
This is an interesting hypothesis.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 04-19-2013, 11:06 AM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
. . . the Democrats in the IL legislature responded with a may-issue proposal so they must think it will pass muster, especially since the 7th gave them 180 days to come up with a new law regulating carry and the court did not instruct them that may-issue will not pass muster.
As noted above, party lines don't make much sense in this context. Democrats are fighting against may issue just like Republicans. Also, just because a state legislator pushes for "may issue" does not mean that s/he thinks it will pass muster. S/He may not have given the matter any thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
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.
If the Court holds that states must allow non-prohibited people to carry a handgun outside the home (other than "sensitive places"), why do you care if states require a license, if they restrict carriage to open carry, or if they restrict carriage to concealed? The important thing is to get carriage outside the home. We can fight the licensed/unlicensed issue later. The concealed/open dispute will resolve itself -- the may issue states will go concealed carry.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 04-19-2013, 11:27 AM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,498
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
As noted above, party lines don't make much sense in this context. Democrats are fighting against may issue just like Republicans. Also, just because a state legislator pushes for "may issue" does not mean that s/he thinks it will pass muster. S/He may not have given the matter any thought.


If the Court holds that states must allow non-prohibited people to carry a handgun outside the home (other than "sensitive places"), why do you care if states require a license, if they restrict carriage to open carry, or if they restrict carriage to concealed? The important thing is to get carriage outside the home. We can fight the licensed/unlicensed issue later. The concealed/open dispute will resolve itself -- the may issue states will go concealed carry.
I think the argument has been that nobody cares how carry is fleshed out by SCOTUS (LOC or CC), just that it is. The speculation has been that the SCOTUS might not want a CC case as the vehicle to flesh out bear. If true, a LOC case started now gets a case in the pipeline for that to be accomplished.
__________________
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club)
CCRKBA Life Member
Madison Society Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-19-2013, 12:08 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
As noted above, party lines don't make much sense in this context. Democrats are fighting against may issue just like Republicans. Also, just because a state legislator pushes for "may issue" does not mean that s/he thinks it will pass muster. S/He may not have given the matter any thought.


If the Court holds that states must allow non-prohibited people to carry a handgun outside the home (other than "sensitive places"), why do you care if states require a license, if they restrict carriage to open carry, or if they restrict carriage to concealed? The important thing is to get carriage outside the home. We can fight the licensed/unlicensed issue later. The concealed/open dispute will resolve itself -- the may issue states will go concealed carry.

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
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-19-2013, 12:17 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,074
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
Just to give you some background on the situation in IL:

First, in IL, Democrat does not automatically equal anti-gun.
Point taken, post edited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
As noted above, party lines don't make much sense in this context. Democrats are fighting against may issue just like Republicans.
See above.

Quote:
If the Court holds that states must allow non-prohibited people to carry a handgun outside the home (other than "sensitive places"), why do you care if states require a license, if they restrict carriage to open carry, or if they restrict carriage to concealed? The important thing is to get carriage outside the home. We can fight the licensed/unlicensed issue later. The concealed/open dispute will resolve itself -- the may issue states will go concealed carry.
You ask for unlicensed loaded open carry because it's a fundamental right like speech not a privilege and only accept licensed (for now) if that's all the court will give us. Second you ask for unlicensed because it slams the door on endless license check harassment and saves us from wasting the courts' time suing later to stop license check harassment, and wasting still more of the courts' time coming back later to sue to end licensing of a fundamental right. Third it keeps the legislature from playing Chicago like games with carry rights. Fourth, getting a ruling declaring that unlicensed carry is a right slams the door shut on future legislative attempts create a license to buy guns, or a license to have a gun in the home, or a license to buy ammo - which all but ends the Ezell and DC license to "keep" nonsense at the same time. Fifth, Scalia seemed disappointed that licensing requirements for a fundamental right wasn't challenged in Heller. In other words, a single uncomplicated ruling heads off a ton of future restrictions and literally decades of litigation.

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 and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 04-19-2013 at 12:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 04-19-2013, 12:30 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
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
Yes, Kachalsky recognized that the Second Amendment extends to conduct outside the home. It did not hold that non-prohibited people have a right to carry a gun outside the home. If SCOTUS holds that non-prohibited people have a right to carry outside the home, then it will be overruling Kachalsky.

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
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-19-2013, 12:50 PM
hardlyworking hardlyworking is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 926
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
You ask for unlicensed loaded open carry because it's a fundamental right like speech not a privilege and only accept licensed (for now) if that's all the court will give us. Second you ask for unlicensed because it slams the door on endless license check harassment and saves us from wasting the courts' time suing later to stop license check harassment, and wasting still more of the courts' time coming back later to sue to end licensing of a fundamental right. Third it keeps the legislature from playing Chicago like games with carry rights. Fourth, getting a ruling declaring that unlicensed carry is a right slams the door shut on future legislative attempts create a license to buy guns, or a license to have a gun in the home, or a license to buy ammo - which all but ends the Ezell and DC license to "keep" nonsense at the same time. Fifth, Scalia seemed disappointed that licensing requirements for a fundamental right wasn't challenged in Heller. In other words, a single uncomplicated ruling heads off a ton of future restrictions and literally decades of litigation.

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.
^^^^ Aaaaaaall that?


I like it!
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-19-2013, 12:58 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
You ask for unlicensed loaded open carry because it's a fundamental right like speech not a privilege and only accept licensed (for now) if that's all the court will give us. Second you ask for unlicensed because it slams the door on endless license check harassment and saves us from wasting the courts' time suing later to stop license check harassment, and wasting still more of the courts' time coming back later to sue to end licensing of a fundamental right. Third it keeps the legislature from playing Chicago like games with carry rights. Fourth, getting a ruling declaring that unlicensed carry is a right slams the door shut on future legislative attempts create a license to buy guns, or a license to have a gun in the home, or a license to buy ammo - which all but ends the Ezell and DC license to "keep" nonsense at the same time. Fifth, Scalia seemed disappointed that licensing requirements for a fundamental right wasn't challenged in Heller. In other words, a single uncomplicated ruling heads off a ton of future restrictions and literally decades of litigation.

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.
The right protected by the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. A gun without ammunition is not an arm, it is a paperweight. The Second Amendment does not care if you have the arm prominently displayed on your hip or tucked into your brassiere. It protects the right to bear. The Court has already reached this holding, but lower courts have stated that the the right to bear outside the home is not a core right and is therefore subject to greater state regulation. We need a ruling that states cannot prohibit any law-abiding, mentally sound adult from carrying a gun outside the home. Once we get this ruling, it almost necessarily establishes that a state cannot condition the exercise of a protected right on a license. It would be a strange right indeed that requires the possession of a license to exercise in public.

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
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-19-2013, 1:13 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,074
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
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.
The Heller decision states that bear is a right but that concealed carry is not and that the states have the right to decide the manner as long as the right to bear exists in some effective form. To me that means the states can choose open carry or concealed or both, but not loaded vs unloaded because Heller specified "ready for use".

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 and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 04-19-2013, 1:22 PM
bussda's Avatar
bussda bussda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,181
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-19-2013, 1:45 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,074
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
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.
Not necessarily. I think that keep in the home and no license required to possess were reachable in Heller because of the way that Scalia pointedly brought up that Gura had conceded the issue of licensing - I think that was a mild slap for conceding a winnable issue. But that's water under the bridge. I agree with Gura that the first case had to be kept to the narrow subject an individual right and the right to keep arms in the home.

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 and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-19-2013, 1:52 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,074
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bussda View Post
Understanding all open carry cases will be judged by the Leonard Embody case, do you want to go there?
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 and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-19-2013, 2:00 PM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,498
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Sholling, excellent points! I'm following what you are saying very well. However, I had a question about the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
...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.
I understand the point about the state encouraging carriers to CC instead of unlicenced LOC. I fail to see how the state can then pass legislation prohibiting unlicensed LOC except in certain peculiar or exigent circumstances, if unlicenced LOC were deemed the Constitutional Minimum Standard (to borrow the term from Mulay). I can understand the state requesting people to apply for their now "shall issue" licenses, but I do not see how the state could limit unlicenced LOC if that were the right. I imagine most people would prefer CC, but I don't see how it could be forced.
__________________
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..
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-19-2013, 2:13 PM
navyinrwanda's Avatar
navyinrwanda navyinrwanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 579
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
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...
In what other aspect of constitutional law has the Supreme Court ever chosen to act in this manner?

Or do the normal canons of justiciability and avoidance simply not apply when the Second Amendment is concerned?
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-19-2013, 2:16 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
The Heller decision states that bear is a right but that concealed carry is not and that the states have the right to decide the manner as long as the right to bear exists in some effective form. To me that means the states can choose open carry or concealed or both, but not loaded vs unloaded because Heller specified "ready for use".
I'd characterize it differently, but close enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
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.
Sure, but the Court is not going to say that unlicensed open carry is a right for the very reason you identified. If the Court held that LOC is a right, then SCOTUS would be invalidating the regulatory framework of nearly every state in the union. It would mean that in MA, every non-prohibited person could walk into a grocery store packing heat on the hip. No state could prohibit LOC. Even if the state allowed CC, any person could LOC. The entire East Coast and CA would erupt with displeasure. SCOTUS does not want to do this -- it would create as much social turbulence as Roe v. Wade.

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
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-19-2013, 2:19 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
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.
Wholly disagree.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-19-2013, 3:50 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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).
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-19-2013, 3:54 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,074
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VAReact View Post
I understand the point about the state encouraging carriers to CC instead of unlicenced LOC. I fail to see how the state can then pass legislation prohibiting unlicensed LOC except in certain peculiar or exigent circumstances, if unlicenced LOC were deemed the Constitutional Minimum Standard (to borrow the term from Mulay). I can understand the state requesting people to apply for their now "shall issue" licenses, but I do not see how the state could limit unlicenced LOC if that were the right. I imagine most people would prefer CC, but I don't see how it could be forced.
Simple, the court was saying that it's up to the states to decide the manner of carry. That there is no right to concealed carry as long as some manner is readily available. I interpret that to mean that states can pick concealed, or open, or both as long as at least one of them is respected as a right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by navyinrwanda View Post
In what other aspect of constitutional law has the Supreme Court ever chosen to act in this manner?

Or do the normal canons of justiciability and avoidance simply not apply when the Second Amendment is concerned?
I think two things come into play. First the conservatives and constitutionalists are well aware of their own mortality and that the widow for constructive 2nd Amendment case law is short. 2nd by only asking to have the Mulford tossed out we're only asking the court two squeaky clean questions that are untainted by "concealed": 1) Is carrying a loaded gun in public in some manner a fundamental right (hint, they said yes it is in Heller)? 2) May states require a license in order to exercise a fundamental right? That's all, that's no more than Heller's individual right to keep and bear arms, and may a government ban functional readily accessible firearms. Addressing licensing gives them the opportunity to specifically address scrutiny levels should they choose, but in the eyes of the courts of appeals unlicensed is going to equate to the strict scrutiny standard of review. Again, we're only asking two very strategic related questions and only those two questions. It's the choice of questions that open a lot of doors at the district and appeals level.

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:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
I'd characterize it differently, but close enough.

Sure, but the Court is not going to say that unlicensed open carry is a right for the very reason you identified. If the Court held that LOC is a right, then SCOTUS would be invalidating the regulatory framework of nearly every state in the union. It would mean that in MA, every non-prohibited person could walk into a grocery store packing heat on the hip. No state could prohibit LOC. Even if the state allowed CC, any person could LOC. The entire East Coast and CA would erupt with displeasure. SCOTUS does not want to do this -- it would create as much social turbulence as Roe v. Wade.

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.
As stated earlier in this post by nullifying the Mulford Act based on a fundamental constitutional right to carry loaded and functional arms in some manner all the court all the court is doing is tossing a law that says you may not openly carry loaded firearms anywhere in the state in public without a may-issue license. The court isn't forced into saying that open carry is the only way that meets the standard or that the state must issue concealed carry licenses. But nullifying Mulford should make unlicensed open carry instantly legal and it's then up to the legislature if they want to try to substitute equally easily available (shall-issue or unlicensed) concealed carry. It's that political wrangling that allows us the opportunity to sugar coat concealed 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 and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 04-19-2013 at 4:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 04-19-2013, 4:10 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,074
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
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).
I disagree. You gain standing by applying for a CCW and once turned down you have standing to sue for the only other method of carry and the Mulford Act is all that's standing in your way . Carry in some form is a right. There must be one or two squeaky clean near angelic members that have applied in LA or SF and were turned down. We just need to get Calguns or the SAF or the NRA to agree to run with it.
__________________
"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.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:07 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.