California Right To Carry
Regular Member
This otherwise silly decision which held that one must keep his guns locked up when not carrying them in one's home has a silver lining.
In my Federal Lawsuit to Overturn California's 1967 ban on Loaded Open Carry as well as the two recently enacted bans on unloaded Open Carry the district court has thrown every roadblock it has in my way to stop me. When it runs out, it makes new ones.
After overcoming all of the obstacles the court threw in my way prior to filing my motion for a Preliminary Injunction the district court invented a new obstacle. The court decided that I cannot have both an as-applied and facial challenge at the same time and so my challenge to the laws must be purely facial. The court then applied what is known as the "Salerno test" which is to say that a law is facially invalid only if it is invalid in every application. Having concluded that the laws are not invalid in every application, the court then applies rational basis review to all of my claims.
The Jackson decision now precludes this kind of BS on the part of district court judges. Or at least district court judges now know that if they pull this stunt the Court of Appeals will not be amused.
Here is a link to the decision.
Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry
"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.
In my Federal Lawsuit to Overturn California's 1967 ban on Loaded Open Carry as well as the two recently enacted bans on unloaded Open Carry the district court has thrown every roadblock it has in my way to stop me. When it runs out, it makes new ones.
After overcoming all of the obstacles the court threw in my way prior to filing my motion for a Preliminary Injunction the district court invented a new obstacle. The court decided that I cannot have both an as-applied and facial challenge at the same time and so my challenge to the laws must be purely facial. The court then applied what is known as the "Salerno test" which is to say that a law is facially invalid only if it is invalid in every application. Having concluded that the laws are not invalid in every application, the court then applies rational basis review to all of my claims.
The Jackson decision now precludes this kind of BS on the part of district court judges. Or at least district court judges now know that if they pull this stunt the Court of Appeals will not be amused.
Here is a link to the decision.
Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry
"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.