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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6481  
Old 05-03-2016, 9:59 PM
glock_this's Avatar
glock_this glock_this is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 8,339
iTrader: 48 / 98%
Default

Or maybe other sheriff's see it is not the wild west in the streets for counties that accepted it & opened the doors - so they relaxed their sphincters.
__________________
10 +1 in the chamber

WTS: Gun stuff & things WTB: HK SP30K 9mm
  #6482  
Old 05-04-2016, 6:50 AM
Bill_in_SD's Avatar
Bill_in_SD Bill_in_SD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glock_this View Post
Or maybe other sheriff's see it is not the wild west in the streets for counties that accepted it & opened the doors - so they relaxed their sphincters.
This is what I am looking forward to - as time goes on, we are able to show that even in Orange County, with all their permits in an urban / suburban area, the children are safe and the streets are not covered in blood.

I am an optimist but it is getting hard to stay one.....
  #6483  
Old 05-05-2016, 6:27 PM
jwissick jwissick is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: San Jose, Ca
Posts: 55
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So will they rule before the 1st year anniversary or after?
  #6484  
Old 05-05-2016, 6:37 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,542
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwissick View Post
So will they rule before the 1st year anniversary or after?

Ask Fabio. He's the authority on the timing of events in the court.



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #6485  
Old 05-05-2016, 8:14 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 570
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwissick View Post
So will they rule before the 1st year anniversary or after?
It is probably being held pending Hills nominating a clone of Sonya to fill Scalia's vacancy.
  #6486  
Old 05-05-2016, 8:46 PM
Strongisland Strongisland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwissick View Post
So will they rule before the 1st year anniversary or after?
  #6487  
Old 05-08-2016, 6:46 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,952
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwissick View Post
So will they rule before the 1st year anniversary or after?
Oh - that might be an interesting "celebration" in front of the Court.

One Year Anniversary of Arguments? We could have a cake and everything....
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
  #6488  
Old 05-08-2016, 8:56 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,515
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
Oh - that might be an interesting "celebration" in front of the Court.

One Year Anniversary of Arguments? We could have a cake and everything....
Is there precedent for this?

__________________
Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CA Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, Good Info CA Gun Law, New CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
California Rifle and Pistol Association - http://crpa.org/membership/
Sacramento County Sheriff Concealed Carry Info - https://www.sacsheriff.com/Pages/Org.../SIIB/CCW.aspx
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
  #6489  
Old 05-08-2016, 8:56 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,689
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Charles Nichols has probably ensured it won't come for a couple more months, at least not until after Wade....

http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/...circuit_55496/
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

225+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

  #6490  
Old 05-08-2016, 11:02 PM
Paul E Paul E is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Santa Clarita
Posts: 182
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

God Nichols is annoying
  #6491  
Old 05-09-2016, 8:03 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,073
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

They don't have to rule. It can be left in legal limbo-land forever, like Prop 187.

I expect it to.
  #6492  
Old 05-09-2016, 9:21 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 470
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul E View Post
God Nichols is annoying
You may not like Mr. Nichols but at least he's in there fighting. He may be throwing haymakers and flailing but he's at least doing it the best he can.

YOU, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines *****ing about how poorly Nichols is doing and waiting for a 'real fighter' to come along. Nichols got off his ***. You picked up the remote.

It's not about 'precedent' either. While you sit waiting for someone, anyone, except Nichols, to come along and rescue you, your rights languish and disappear. If Nichols' case sets unfavorable precedent, then you are no worse than you are now. No exercisable rights.

The irony is that if Nichols wins, you get to take part in the celebration and enjoy the restored freedoms from his efforts. As if you'd supported him all along.

Which is the goal of every fence sitter out there. Spineless.
  #6493  
Old 05-09-2016, 9:32 AM
KG-LA KG-LA is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you Mr Nichols.
  #6494  
Old 05-09-2016, 9:56 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,675
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
You may not like Mr. Nichols but at least he's in there fighting. He may be throwing haymakers and flailing but he's at least doing it the best he can.

YOU, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines *****ing about how poorly Nichols is doing and waiting for a 'real fighter' to come along. Nichols got off his ***. You picked up the remote.

It's not about 'precedent' either. While you sit waiting for someone, anyone, except Nichols, to come along and rescue you, your rights languish and disappear. If Nichols' case sets unfavorable precedent, then you are no worse than you are now. No exercisable rights.

The irony is that if Nichols wins, you get to take part in the celebration and enjoy the restored freedoms from his efforts. As if you'd supported him all along.

Which is the goal of every fence sitter out there. Spineless.

'Precedent'... Excellent evaluation.
  #6495  
Old 05-09-2016, 12:58 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I just wish Nichols could get along with other people. And support others to advance his theories.

In terms of Nichols- I haven't seen any really bad precedent he could set, and he helps create volume of cases. The courts are rigged at this point anyway, so whatever.
  #6496  
Old 05-09-2016, 1:24 PM
jwissick jwissick is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: San Jose, Ca
Posts: 55
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They are taking their own damn time. Justice delayed is justice denied as they say.
  #6497  
Old 05-09-2016, 2:07 PM
gun toting monkeyboy's Avatar
gun toting monkeyboy gun toting monkeyboy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Diego (more or less)
Posts: 6,706
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I just wish Nichols would quit coming up with shill accounts to blow his own horn on here. Seriously, the guy is a narcissist to the Nth degree. He can't sit by and not jump in to tell us how wonderful or brilliant he is, despite his continual stream of court losses. I mean, seriously, having the judge laugh at you as he dismisses your case? As for us being no worse of if he sets a bad legal precedent? Ummm... I don't think that word means what you think it means. If he screws the pooch with one of his ill-thought-out lawsuits, it has the possibility of handing the anti-gun campaign a legal club to beat us with for years to come. And the rest of us aren't sitting around waiting. We are supporting the cases that we think stand a chance of make it. Not just throwing money at some whack-job who wants to show the rest of us how much smarter he is than the rest of the world. We are supporting lawyers that have actually WON cases. Lawyers who have long-term strategies that build on what others have done before them, as part a comprehensive, well-though-out campaign. Unlike Nichols, who comes up with hare-brained schemes, and can't understand why they fail repeatedly. Don't try to lecture us on not doing anything. We have the patience and foresight to realize that things need to be done incrementally. Most of us see the folly in rushing in like a self-righteous moron, and trying to ham-handedly try to take on all of the anti-gun laws directly, with no foundation of precedent, or even common sense. Even a child can see that letting the other side get wins with the softball pitches he keeps giving them will hurt us long term.

-Mb
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplinker View Post
It's OK not to post when you have no clue what you're talking about.
  #6498  
Old 05-09-2016, 6:11 PM
Paul E Paul E is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Santa Clarita
Posts: 182
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
You may not like Mr. Nichols but at least he's in there fighting. He may be throwing haymakers and flailing but he's at least doing it the best he can.

YOU, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines *****ing about how poorly Nichols is doing and waiting for a 'real fighter' to come along. Nichols got off his ***. You picked up the remote.

It's not about 'precedent' either. While you sit waiting for someone, anyone, except Nichols, to come along and rescue you, your rights languish and disappear. If Nichols' case sets unfavorable precedent, then you are no worse than you are now. No exercisable rights.

The irony is that if Nichols wins, you get to take part in the celebration and enjoy the restored freedoms from his efforts. As if you'd supported him all along.

Which is the goal of every fence sitter out there. Spineless.
It's a shame Nichols doesn't spend more time on the sidelines and let the adults work.

If he wins OC, no guns signs pop up everywhere, carry the force of law, and we're even more screwed with yet another de facto carry ban but with no ccw in sight.

You're right, I do sit on my ***. I know my strengths and weaknesses. I'd be a horrible lawyer, but I'm really good at cutting checks to cgf.

Last edited by Paul E; 05-09-2016 at 6:14 PM..
  #6499  
Old 05-10-2016, 1:46 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 257
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I dont see how winning open carry rights is a bad thing.

Saying Nichols is not an adult, or should not pursue his claim, just doesnt make sense to me given the hostility of the courts to the 2nd amendment. If they plan to rule we have no rights to bear arms, Id prefer to make them do so in a plain and unmistakable manner.

We have asked for permitted concealed carry, and we are waiting on Peruta decision for that.

If that is not a favorable outcome, then open carry is all we have left to seek as the actual right.

If both open carry and neutrally permitted concealed carry are determined to not be within the right to keep and bear arms, then none of this matters as we will have no right to bear arms.
  #6500  
Old 05-10-2016, 2:21 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,959
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
If they plan to rule we have no rights to bear arms, Id prefer to make them do so in a plain and unmistakable manner.
I can see why:

the 2A is written in a plain and unmistakable manner, and it seems to mean we have no RKBA.

Therefore, if the courts write, in a plain and unmistakable manner, that we have no RKBA, it might mean we do!

I therefore support your preference
__________________
  #6501  
Old 05-10-2016, 3:07 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 257
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

speed, what you wrote is nonsensical.

My point is that if the courts choose to ignore the plain text, and they are allowed no room to wiggle, we will at least know where we stand.

I also think it will begin several decades of Supreme Court wars like we have not seen before. If The courts can ignore one section, then surely the rest is up for grabs.
  #6502  
Old 05-10-2016, 3:30 PM
gun toting monkeyboy's Avatar
gun toting monkeyboy gun toting monkeyboy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Diego (more or less)
Posts: 6,706
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Elgatodeacero,
The problem here isn't so much open carry versus concealed carry. Ideally, we should be able to get both. But it was the State's banning of open carry that opened the door for us to get the Peruta ruling. In essence, what the rulings over the past few years have boiled down to is that the State is allowed to determine what form of carry they prefer, provided that at least one form was open to us. The main reason we had been losing here in California is because the last vestige of open carry, namely UNLOADED open carry, was still legally allowed with some rather severe restrictions. Once the State removed that option, they opened Pandora's box and unintentionally put themselves in the position of having to move to Shall-issue. That ruling is what this thread is about. And it is what we are waiting on. However, the man-child Nichols decided that HE didn't want to have to get a CCL, and wanted to carry openly, because it always gets him more attention. So rather than waiting for all of this to work it's way through the legal system, he declares that HE doesn't carry a purse, and therefore doesn't want a CCL. He wants to be able to open carry. Well, that is nice and all, though I kind of doubt he doesn't carry a purse (or a feather boa, for that matter), but if he gets his way, he will, at best, muddy the waters, and turn what is clear legal victory into something that the liberal judges can weasel their way out of. Nichols idiocy could very well lead to the State allowing unloaded open carry again, with even more restrictions, and get them out of having to move to shall-issue. The problem is that Mr. You-ain't-the-boss-of-me can't see that, because he has all of the legal acumen of a drunken toad.

-Mb
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplinker View Post
It's OK not to post when you have no clue what you're talking about.
  #6503  
Old 05-10-2016, 3:35 PM
e90bmw e90bmw is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northern Ca.
Posts: 1,268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gun toting monkeyboy View Post
Elgatodeacero,
The problem here isn't so much open carry versus concealed carry. Ideally, we should be able to get both. But it was the State's banning of open carry that opened the door for us to get the Peruta ruling. In essence, what the rulings over the past few years have boiled down to is that the State is allowed to determine what form of carry they prefer, provided that at least one form was open to us. The main reason we had been losing here in California is because the last vestige of open carry, namely UNLOADED open carry, was still legally allowed with some rather severe restrictions. Once the State removed that option, they opened Pandora's box and unintentionally put themselves in the position of having to move to Shall-issue. That ruling is what this thread is about. And it is what we are waiting on. However, the man-child Nichols decided that HE didn't want to have to get a CCL, and wanted to carry openly, because it always gets him more attention. So rather than waiting for all of this to work it's way through the legal system, he declares that HE doesn't carry a purse, and therefore doesn't want a CCL. He wants to be able to open carry. Well, that is nice and all, though I kind of doubt he doesn't carry a purse (or a feather boa, for that matter), but if he gets his way, he will, at best, muddy the waters, and turn what is clear legal victory into something that the liberal judges can weasel their way out of. Nichols idiocy could very well lead to the State allowing unloaded open carry again, with even more restrictions, and get them out of having to move to shall-issue. The problem is that Mr. You-ain't-the-boss-of-me can't see that, because he has all of the legal acumen of a drunken toad.

-Mb
Couldn't have said it better.
I don't want open carry. I prefer concealed.
The only person that should know I carry, is the one that sees me get dressed and even then she won't know all the time.

He's an idiot wrapped in a moron.
  #6504  
Old 05-10-2016, 3:59 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,959
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
speed, what you wrote is nonsensical.

My point is that if the courts choose to ignore the plain text, and they are allowed no room to wiggle, we will at least know where we stand.

I also think it will begin several decades of Supreme Court wars like we have not seen before. If The courts can ignore one section, then surely the rest is up for grabs.
nonsensical is correct, because it's an accurate portrayal of what's happening in our judicial system, which is nonsensical

I agree with you on all counts, in case that isn't clear
__________________
  #6505  
Old 05-10-2016, 4:25 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,689
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Charles Nichols has probably ensured it won't come for a couple more months, at least not until after Wade....
Wade was decided (we lost (surprise!)). So my GUESS is Peruta within 2 months.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

225+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

  #6506  
Old 05-11-2016, 12:07 AM
Paul E Paul E is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Santa Clarita
Posts: 182
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

My problem with a Nichols win is if we end up with LOC...then no guns signs go up everywhere and soccer mom's just panic 24/7. Concealed has so many more practical/strategic/political advantages.
  #6507  
Old 05-11-2016, 4:52 AM
smn smn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 59
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Georgia has been an open carry state for many generations and signs are far and few between because businesses want to follow state law vs losing a few dollars from those who spend $$ on weapons. Decently-dressed persons not doing stupid things while open carrying does not trigger soccer mom panic around here. Don't project irrational fears where you live. I really hope CA gets OC.
  #6508  
Old 05-11-2016, 5:41 AM
canadagoose canadagoose is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 69
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smn View Post
Georgia has been an open carry state for many generations and signs are far and few between because businesses want to follow state law vs losing a few dollars from those who spend $$ on weapons. Decently-dressed persons not doing stupid things while open carrying does not trigger soccer mom panic around here. Don't project irrational fears where you live. I really hope CA gets OC.
California has a lot of people who are irrationally afraid of guns. We might be able to normalize their views with more exposure, but I doubt it.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
  #6509  
Old 05-11-2016, 7:22 AM
SpookyWatcher SpookyWatcher is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 69
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I open carried everyday of life when I lived/grew up in AZ. It was definitely NOT as big of deal as some here are trying to let you believe. True, californians are probably affraid of their shadow and there will be an adjustment period as all the hand wringers get used to it.

But if Nichols prevails and it becomes legal here (I can only pray) I will dance the jig and not sweat one bit that Gore refuses to issue.

Case in point...I was in AZ for 4 days last week. I got together with my old friend who I grew up with. He was open carrying while we were driving and going to lunch. His Glock 23 Gen 4 w/ evil standard cap mags was located in that nook where the emergency handbrake is.

We went to TOGO's sandwhich shop for lunch. He tucked it in his waistband (because only the holster or firearm has to be wholly or PARTIALLY visable). We had lunch. No one freaked out.

Then we actually got pulled over. There was construction and the lower speed limit signs were posted over the existing normal signs so he didn't notice it. As the officer came up my buddy said, "Afternoon, I'm open carrying. Would you like to secure it?"

Officer said "No but Thank You". He ended up not writing a ticket, he didn't run the firearm, he didn't freak out and we were on our way.

I'm not trying to rub it in. Just saying everyone here is placing ALL of their hopes on Peruta, which we KNOW WILL be overturned (unless the 9th is scared of open carry passing SC smell test then they may pass it to keep open carry ban in place). And here we have Nichols fighting a GOOD fight and most of you poo poo him instead of rallying!

Open carry is awesome! As I said before, I open carried everyday of life since I was 16. It is not the quagmire that some here try to paint it. If it ends up being all that I get...I will be beyond ecstatic. And Gore can pound sand.

I don't have faith in a successful Peruta outcome. And I'm more optimistic about Nichols. So long story short...give open carry a chance! Don't poo poo it. I speak from 20 years experience open carrying.
  #6510  
Old 05-11-2016, 7:41 AM
smn smn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 59
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadagoose View Post
California has a lot of people who are irrationally afraid of guns. We might be able to normalize their views with more exposure, but I doubt it.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
This is a recent example of the kind of letter businesses receive when a rumor or sign goes up.
  #6511  
Old 05-11-2016, 9:22 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,542
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul E View Post
My problem with a Nichols win is if we end up with LOC...then no guns signs go up everywhere and soccer mom's just panic 24/7. Concealed has so many more practical/strategic/political advantages.
If concealed carry is won as a real right, then the same thing will happen. The government will ensure it. It will "notify" all businesses of the situation. And it will most certainly pass a law making violation of "no guns" signs a prohibitive misdemeanor at best.

Put another way, the government will ensure that the maximum number of "no guns" signs will go up if concealed carry is secured as a right, and it will ensure that people who wish to carry will have to violate the law to do so, just like they do right now.


That means there is no difference in the end between winning concealed carry as a right and winning open carry as a right, save for one: if we win concealed carry as a right, we will never acclimate the citizenry to the presence of firearms in the hands of the law abiding, because people cannot acclimate to that which they cannot see. If we win open carry as a right, then such acclimation suddenly becomes a very real possibility (painful and difficult as it may initially be).
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #6512  
Old 05-11-2016, 10:18 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,073
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It's not coming up. it's been buried. File it away with Prop 187.
  #6513  
Old 05-11-2016, 11:21 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
If concealed carry is won as a real right, then the same thing will happen. The government will ensure it. It will "notify" all businesses of the situation. And it will most certainly pass a law making violation of "no guns" signs a prohibitive misdemeanor at best.

Put another way, the government will ensure that the maximum number of "no guns" signs will go up if concealed carry is secured as a right, and it will ensure that people who wish to carry will have to violate the law to do so, just like they do right now.


That means there is no difference in the end between winning concealed carry as a right and winning open carry as a right, save for one: if we win concealed carry as a right, we will never acclimate the citizenry to the presence of firearms in the hands of the law abiding, because people cannot acclimate to that which they cannot see. If we win open carry as a right, then such acclimation suddenly becomes a very real possibility (painful and difficult as it may initially be).
KC you're nuts. California legislators aren't that paranoid and specifically animated to kneecap us. There's no evidence for this at all.

Wait, what happened with concealed carry on school grounds after one incident of a jackass dropping his piece and fear of peruta?
  #6514  
Old 05-11-2016, 12:29 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,582
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
KC you're nuts. California legislators aren't that paranoid and specifically animated to kneecap us. There's no evidence for this at all.

Wait, what happened with concealed carry on school grounds after one incident of a jackass dropping his piece and fear of peruta?
And UOC of handguns and rifles was banned....because people started doing it.

They will find every way the can to restrict it......just like they're trying to do with everything now.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
  #6515  
Old 05-11-2016, 12:45 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
And UOC of handguns and rifles was banned....because people started doing it.

They will find every way the can to restrict it......just like they're trying to do with everything now.
But clearly these are people that can be led into believing Open Carry is a right and concealed carry is not, and has nothing to do with their own biases! These people are gullible and have no agenda, and we have so much persuasion capital that if we pursue open carry we might convince them of something they wouldn't agree with!

I totally agree, we shouldn't pursue open carry because these delicate flowers are easily led by the nose, and can easily be shifted from granting us concealed carry, or even constitutional carry, into granting us permitted open carry.

How could we be so stupid as to realize we hold all the power?

/Sarc
  #6516  
Old 05-11-2016, 1:38 PM
Paul E Paul E is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Santa Clarita
Posts: 182
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
If concealed carry is won as a real right, then the same thing will happen. The government will ensure it. It will "notify" all businesses of the situation. And it will most certainly pass a law making violation of "no guns" signs a prohibitive misdemeanor at best.

Put another way, the government will ensure that the maximum number of "no guns" signs will go up if concealed carry is secured as a right, and it will ensure that people who wish to carry will have to violate the law to do so, just like they do right now.


That means there is no difference in the end between winning concealed carry as a right and winning open carry as a right, save for one: if we win concealed carry as a right, we will never acclimate the citizenry to the presence of firearms in the hands of the law abiding, because people cannot acclimate to that which they cannot see. If we win open carry as a right, then such acclimation suddenly becomes a very real possibility (painful and difficult as it may initially be).
The difference is even if there's a sign on the door banning ccw, I can still walk in and do my business without anyone even realizing. Batting a few potential outliers.

Whereas open carry as soon as you walk in the shop everyone knows you're carrying and potential panic ensues.

Politically ccw makes more sense. If soccer mom's see people carrying guns all day every day it's just a reminder to them that they need to "do more". Ccw will make a few small headlines and then everyone will forget and it can continue to be low key.

The other benefit is carry at work. I don't see most employers allowing their employees to open carry, but ccw will either be allowed or at least not prohibited...more of a dont ask don't tell.
  #6517  
Old 05-11-2016, 3:18 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 257
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
If concealed carry is won as a real right, then the same thing will happen. The government will ensure it. It will "notify" all businesses of the situation. And it will most certainly pass a law making violation of "no guns" signs a prohibitive misdemeanor at best.

Put another way, the government will ensure that the maximum number of "no guns" signs will go up if concealed carry is secured as a right, and it will ensure that people who wish to carry will have to violate the law to do so, just like they do right now.


That means there is no difference in the end between winning concealed carry as a right and winning open carry as a right, save for one: if we win concealed carry as a right, we will never acclimate the citizenry to the presence of firearms in the hands of the law abiding, because people cannot acclimate to that which they cannot see. If we win open carry as a right, then such acclimation suddenly becomes a very real possibility (painful and difficult as it may initially be).
I agree with this analysis.
  #6518  
Old 05-11-2016, 3:21 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 470
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gun toting monkeyboy View Post
I just wish Nichols would quit coming up with shill accounts to blow his own horn on here. Seriously, the guy is a narcissist to the Nth degree. He can't sit by and not jump in to tell us how wonderful or brilliant he is, despite his continual stream of court losses. I mean, seriously, having the judge laugh at you as he dismisses your case? As for us being no worse of if he sets a bad legal precedent? Ummm... I don't think that word means what you think it means. If he screws the pooch with one of his ill-thought-out lawsuits, it has the possibility of handing the anti-gun campaign a legal club to beat us with for years to come. And the rest of us aren't sitting around waiting. We are supporting the cases that we think stand a chance of make it. Not just throwing money at some whack-job who wants to show the rest of us how much smarter he is than the rest of the world. We are supporting lawyers that have actually WON cases. Lawyers who have long-term strategies that build on what others have done before them, as part a comprehensive, well-though-out campaign. Unlike Nichols, who comes up with hare-brained schemes, and can't understand why they fail repeatedly. Don't try to lecture us on not doing anything. We have the patience and foresight to realize that things need to be done incrementally. Most of us see the folly in rushing in like a self-righteous moron, and trying to ham-handedly try to take on all of the anti-gun laws directly, with no foundation of precedent, or even common sense. Even a child can see that letting the other side get wins with the softball pitches he keeps giving them will hurt us long term.

-Mb
You've been told this before.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...postcount=3842

I think that when Kestryll tells you something, you should seriously believe that he knows what he's talking about.
  #6519  
Old 05-11-2016, 3:31 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,542
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul E View Post
The difference is even if there's a sign on the door banning ccw, I can still walk in and do my business without anyone even realizing. Batting a few potential outliers.
In violation of the law? You can do that already.



Quote:
Whereas open carry as soon as you walk in the shop everyone knows you're carrying and potential panic ensues.
Initially, that is certainly true.


Quote:
Politically ccw makes more sense. If soccer mom's see people carrying guns all day every day it's just a reminder to them that they need to "do more". Ccw will make a few small headlines and then everyone will forget and it can continue to be low key.
You mean the way people have forgotten about "assault weapons" and all that?

Sorry, but the political climate here is toxic not just to the manifestation of arms in the hands of the law abiding, it's toxic to the mere idea of it.

Once again: if concealed carry is secured as a right, the government will make sure it remains sufficiently visible to ensure the proliferation of "no guns" signs which will make it illegal to carry your concealed firearms in any place where such a sign exists.


Quote:
The other benefit is carry at work. I don't see most employers allowing their employees to open carry, but ccw will either be allowed or at least not prohibited...more of a dont ask don't tell.
Aren't you able to do that already? All you have to do is keep it locked and unloaded while in public. Once you're on your employer's property, you can carry it concealed it if you wish. If concealed carry becomes a matter of right here in California, that dynamic will change in only one way: you won't have to deal with the transition between locked+unloaded and loaded+concealed.

That's not going to be the case if the transport laws would forbid you from transporting your firearm to your place of employment in the first place, of course...
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #6520  
Old 05-11-2016, 3:49 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
You've been told this before.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...postcount=3842

I think that when Kestryll tells you something, you should seriously believe that he knows what he's talking about.
Rplaw, that's not fair.

It's easier to attack your character than your points.

Because attacking your points means asserting with a straight face that the California courts/9th circuit won't do whatever they want, regardless of the reasoning or law.

Because attacking your points means that people like Adam Winkler haven't already pointed out the concerns of people who disagree with you as a possible way to hedge their bets, but public statements appear to show that the legislature/CA politicians hold Winkler in contempt because he tells them to moderate as opposed to go full retard.

Because it means acknowledging they somehow think that courts can be convinced away from a super pro-2nd amendment ruling to a lesser pro-2nd amendment ruling.

Far easier to attack you.

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 05-11-2016 at 4:37 PM..
Closed Thread

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 6:39 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.