What…? A quarter century? Is that all it takes?
Example:Concealed carry has been legal in Florida since when? Circa 1987 or so? Why is open carry, even with it’s recent pussy juice law that was recently passed, not really legal? Well…? It’s not. It’s not, * uckers! It’s not. Walk down Siesta Key Beach with a pistol hanging out of your belt in a holster and see what happens!
Or is it O.K. for the states to ban one form of carry and not the other?
Admittedly I am playing devils advocate here.
This map on a California CCW forum reveals which counties are CCW friendly, and which aren’t.
My permit cost $65 for the 8-hour class, and $120 for processing at the Sheriff’s Department. I’m not aware of any county charging thousands of dollars for a permit. If they’ll issue a permit, it’s fairly cheap.
The reason it may cost a lot in some counties is that sheriffs tend to reward big campaign donors with permits. Lawsuits and PRAR (public records requests) requests have exposed that a high number of permit holders are such contributors. CA law permits this as it gives total discretion to the local sheriff on whether or not to issue.
I think it sucks, but reality is that it does take time. Heller was a little under 4 years ago. McDonald was less than 2 years ago. Those are the instruments to bring down restrictions in CA and other places, but they need to come down individually, work their way through lower courts and so on.
Nordyke in CA has been in court more than 10 years now. Justice is slow. Eventually courts will have to determine what the word bear means in the context of the 2nd. It’s in there, it has to mean something. I think it would be constitutionally permissible to ban either open or concealed carry, but not both. We’ll see if the court agrees.
I think with current litigation, June of 2014 is when CA LTC (license to carry) will be resolved.
Forgot to add:
For example, there are laws in CA that state each handgun in CA needs to be tested before it can be sold, placed on a roster of “not-unsafe” handguns, and the manufacturer has to pay to have it maintained on that roster. If they fail to pay one year, it can never go back on the roster and now it becomes illegal. So a handgun in one color can be okay, but a different color can be illegal. This is actually the case. That law needs to be challenged differently than the law that says you can’t buy more than 1 handgun in 30 day period. Or the law that says the stock of your semi automatic rifle can determine if it’s legal or not. Each one is a separate case and needs to work through the courts.
The good thing is that the losers pay court costs and attorney fees, so hopefully the pain of having to pay each time may encourage localities to stop violating people’s civil rights. This was contributing in Sacramento County recently, where their LTC policy was revised upon threat of major lawsuit that they would likely have lost.
They wouldn’t want such a ban in California. Then people like Senator Feinstein, who have their own concealed carry permits while they fight to make sure nobody else gets one, wouldn’t be able to tote a gun.
It doesn’t have to mean anything. We got Heller because SCOTUS was able to ignore half of the 2nd Amendment by pretending it was a prefatory clause. We had the pre-Heller state of affairs because courts pretended bits of the other half of the amendment weren’t there.
You’re right - SCOTUS could ignore the whole thing.
I don’t think that’s going to happen though. Currently levels of scrutiny, the meaning of bear, defining sensitive places, non-resident purchases, discretionary LTC - these are all being litigated. As long as the 5 on SCOTUS remain I think they’ll take clean cases and flesh them out.
They have already stated that the primary purpose of the 2nd is self defense - I doubt the right of self defense disappears or fades after you leave your house. Bear will mean something.
That kind of proves my point. Not even the plaintiff’s attorneys in Heller argued that the purposed of the 2nd amendment was self-defense; the Court made that one up all by itself.
I’m not sure what your point is. That the court could ignore it and do nothing? I agree that they could, I don’t believe they will. Do you?
Transport of firearms is going to be a tad bit tougher now. You can’t transport both the firearm and ammunition in the same vehicle?
This is why the NRA types are upset about it. Slippery Slope, and it is.
I believe the court will end up with whatever result it wishes to reach regardless of the text of the amendment.
^ this. This can also be said about almost every other Supreme Court case.
Please see posts 9, 16, 17, and 19 in this thread. Especially 16, which quotes relevant law.
(It’s easier to make a convincing argument if you take the trouble to read the thread before posting.)
What do they consider “regular” citizens? I’m assuming non-law enforcement and non-military?
Why is Orange County, a notoriously conservative county, skewed towards non-issuance?
Regular is non special status as determined wholly by the local sheriff.
Orange County has had recent legal issues with their sheriffs. I’m not familiar with the details, but the former sheriff stepped down and on an interim basis the city council appointed an acting sheriff. The acting sheriff was elected in the most recent election and her issuance policies are more restrictive.
Here is a little more detailed look at CA issuance practices. That link contains an article talking about AB144 as well as a PDF of LTC statistics acquired from the CA DOJ. It has “records of all LTC licenses and pending applications statewide, identified by type, expiration, and the associated licensing authority.”
From the stats, only approximately 1 in 1000 non-LEOs have a LTC in CA.
Not really. Generally, they’re quite straightforward. On certain issues, they’re not.
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:53, topic:599217”]
Please see posts 9, 16, 17, and 19 in this thread. Especially 16, which quotes relevant law.
(It’s easier to make a convincing argument if you take the trouble to read the thread before posting.)
[/QUOTE]
/sadpandaface
I even posted a link to the text of the bill. No honorable mention?
Whoops. Missed that one. Sorry!
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:58, topic:599217”]
Whoops. Missed that one. Sorry!
[/QUOTE]
/happypandaface
Woot!
Yesterday, former Solicitor General Paul Clement got involved in the Peruta case substituting in representing the plaintiff-appelant on behalf of the NRA.
The Peruta case ruled that a LTC was not required because the 2nd amendment was satisfied by the option to UOC (unloaded open carry). I think this is clearly incorrect, however even based on this reasoning, with the signing of AB144, that limited option is foreclosed. Bringing in Clement on the Peruta case is bad sign for gun control supporters in CA. AB144 could be the lever to push for more permissive LTC across the state - possibly de facto shall issue.
Hopefully San Diego doesn’t see the writing on the wall and cave to avoid paying attorney fees so this could continue and set precedent. If not this case, then there are others in process.