AB144 / LTC / Virtual Shall Issue

[Bigtime1]

I apologize in advance if this is addressed elsewhere, but cruising through the various posts made in the aftermath of Moonbeam's signing festival I haven't seen any info addressing the "next steps".

IIRC a large part of the recent ruling on SDSO was that since UOC was an option us minions weren't worthy of an LTC.

I've also seen posts that indicate CA will be virtual shall-issue in 2012.

Are these two now intertwined? Any plan of attacking the earlier ruling now that the feeble excuse put forth buy the judge has been made moot by Moonbeam's pen?

Would it be a good time for more LTC applicants in SD, and should those applicants cite the loss of UOC for self-defense within the application?

Inquiring minds are inquiring.

[Justchill]

I would also like to know where we stand after Moonbeams liberal signing frenzy!

[Librarian]

You do realize it's only Wednesday, the third day after the signing.

Does Macy's tell Gimbels?

[dantodd]

Most likely the first fall out from AB144 that you will se is the next filing in Richards v. Prieto. my guess is that we will see a filing from the food guys that essentially says "the last judge said we have a right to bear arms outside the home. They also said that we can't force the sheriff to accept self-defense for good cause because we could open carry. Now that we can no longer open carry please force the sheriff to issue licenses to carry so that we may exercise the right that is already recognized in this case."

[HowardW56]

Most likely the first fall out from AB144 that you will se is the next filing in Richards v. Prieto. my guess is that we will see a filing from the food guys that essentially says "the last judge said we have a right to bear arms outside the home. They also said that we can't force the sheriff to accept self-defense for good cause because we could open carry. Now that we can no longer open carry please force the sheriff to issue licenses to carry so that we may exercise the right that is already recognized in this case."

[Bigtime1]

Most likely the first fall out from AB144 that you will se is the next filing in Richards v. Prieto. my guess is that we will see a filing from the food guys that essentially says "the last judge said we have a right to bear arms outside the home. They also said that we can't force the sheriff to accept self-defense for good cause because we could open carry. Now that we can no longer open carry please force the sheriff to issue licenses to carry so that we may exercise the right that is already recognized in this case."

1) Who are the "food guys"?

2) Librarian: Touche!

[stix213]

I'm sure you'll see something interesting with Gura's name on it in the next few weeks. As always, he has to spend just a bit extra time intertwining his witty humor into the arguments Something like this in Chicago:

The only thing that Defendant City has managed to render moot, before it was even filed, is its motion to dismiss the case for mootness.

[palakaboy]

Maybe he means fud?

[OleCuss]

Pretty much what dantodd said.

But it is also my understanding that Chuck Michel effectively told our legislators that passing AB144 would mean virtual Shall Issue carry licensing for this state. The way I understand it is that Peruta (represented by Michel's firm) goes back to the district court and asks that the court's decision be vacated since officially legal UOC was her reason for denying Peruta relief. Similar scenario to what dantodd outlined except that Peruta actually has to go back to the court.

But I really suspect there is another element to what is going to happen with regard to AB144. When I heard Chuck Michel on the radio he sounded like he just might be representing a UOC group. Others who are more plugged in believe I'm taking this too far and they may be right.

But my exceedingly limited legal knowledge suggests that AB144 is inviting a 1st Amendment challenge. It would not shock me if RCoC has retained Michel's firm and is planning a public event to kick off a legal action. And no, no one has told me anything beyond what is publicly available so I could be wrong to a huge degree.

But note that there is some synergy to having a 1A case against AB144 and at the same time having a case which may be vacated due to AB144's passage.

I can't help speculating. But it is not much (if any) more than speculation.

Edit: I had just heard excerpts previously and it sounded stronger (toward UOC representation) than did the full interview. I found the interview and while it is suggestive it is not as strong as the spliced together comments. Here's a link: http://wpc.309d.edgecastcdn.net/8030.../174/36796.mp3

[viet4lifeOC]

I'm confused. Why fight UOC ban when it is a great way to argue whaypt we want..shall issue LTC? Personally, I see anything short of shall, issue LTC as losing.

Pretty much what dantodd said.

But it is also my understanding that Chuck Michel effectively told our legislators that passing AB144 would mean virtual Shall Issue carry licensing for this state. The way I understand it is that Peruta (represented by Michel's firm) goes back to the district court and asks that the court's decision be vacated since officially legal UOC was her reason for denying Peruta relief. Similar scenario to what dantodd outlined except that Peruta actually has to go back to the court.

But I really suspect there is another element to what is going to happen with regard to AB144. When I heard Chuck Michel on the radio he sounded like he just might be representing a UOC group. Others who are more plugged in believe I'm taking this too far and they may be right.

But my exceedingly limited legal knowledge suggests that AB144 is inviting a 1st Amendment challenge. It would not shock me if RCoC has retained Michel's firm and is planning a public event to kick off a legal action. And no, no one has told me anything beyond what is publicly available so I could be wrong to a huge degree.

But note that there is some synergy to having a 1A case against AB144 and at the same time having a case which may be vacated due to AB144's passage.

I can't help speculating. But it is not much (if any) more than speculation.

Edit: I had just heard excerpts previously and it sounded stronger (toward UOC representation) than did the full interview. I found the interview and while it is suggestive it is not as strong as the spliced together comments. Here's a link: http://wpc.309d.edgecastcdn.net/8030.../174/36796.mp3

[OleCuss]

The sequencing should work out pretty well. Peruta and Richards get their respective injunctions.

Then if some entity such as RCoC wins an injunction against AB144 on 1A grounds, effectively locking UOC into case law as a free speech issue rather than as a RKBA issue - then it remedies many of the issues people are going to have with transporting their non-functional firearms and should make it at least somewhat difficult for someone to go back to the court and say, "Well, they got their 1A right back so now we can once again kill off their 2A rights".

Much better scenario than if someone managed to go to a court asking for an injunction based on 2A grounds. That might mean that you get a rather moronic court to lock UOC into case law as a 2A issue - and that might mean you don't get UOC and you may damage virtual shall issue as well.

So I see a common interest for Peruta and for UOC to get UOC established in court as a 1A right and get it reversed on those grounds.

But IANAL and could be way off base.

A more direct answer is that we believe in all civil rights. AB144 is violating our 1A right to free speech and should be reversed.

[nicki]

AB144 is inviting alot of things.

On could argue that AB144 came into existence because of public rallies supporting open carry.

It definitely was in the news and it was a form of "unpopular political expression" just like say "flag burning".

Of course talking about a lawsuit and filing a proper one is another story, what seems like a "good idea" often is alot more complicated when you have to do the "details".

In theory I would like to see a lawsuit attacking not only AB144, but the Mulford Act and the 1000 foot school zone as well since all of those laws combined don't just regulate our right to bear arms, they eliminate it.

Since the right of "self defense" doesn't stop outside one's doorstep, the argument that the 2nd amendment applies only in one's home is absurd.

A person should have some means of being able to exercise their self defense rights without having to wait months for government approval if that approval is to come at all.

The history of the Mulford act is blantantly racists and the 1000 foot school zone garbage was a feel good law that doesn't deal with the problems that created them in the first place.

Nicki

[CHS]

I'm confused. Why fight UOC ban when it is a great way to argue whaypt we want..shall issue LTC? Personally, I see anything short of shall, issue LTC as losing.

Because the right should not be limited to one form of carry or another.

You either have a right to carry loaded functional firearms in public, or not.

While *I* am one of those that certainly prefers LTC, what I WANT is an unrestricted right to carry loaded functional firearms for self defense. If that's open and on the belt, or concealed and in the waistband, whatever. I want it for everyone. Period. That's the way it should be.

[BMartin1776]

If they do make a move to shall issue anyone have any idea how the application process would go. I mean cmon this is CA they will love to find any reason whatsoever to disarm someone or say no.

Does anyone think "personal self defense" will be a sufficient reason to get a CCW now that UOC is banned?

[stix213]

If they do make a move to shall issue anyone have any idea how the application process would go. I mean cmon this is CA they will love to find any reason whatsoever to disarm someone or say no.

Does anyone think "personal self defense" will be a sufficient reason to get a CCW now that UOC is banned?

There is little expectation that the application process would change at all. The biggest change would be getting approved instead of denied.