California Right To Carry
Regular Member
It is amazing how many morons think anything good is going to come out of the 90 day stay. A stay which Alan Gura wants in order to give DC time to enact a new law banning the Open Carry of handguns and of course requiring an expensive, burdensome permit to carry concealed. This is going to be a repeat of the Illinois fiasco. We started off with an injunction against the ban on carrying loaded firearms, including long guns, in public with a stay of the injunction. The NRA and SAF then lobbied the Illinois legislature to ban the Open Carry of firearms, which included a ban on the carrying of long guns, leaving a "shall issue" concealed carry permit scheme even worse than the may issue scheme in place in California.
Here is what the lead plaintiff, Palmer, had to say in Reason magazine about Open Carry:
"Palmer says now whatever way D.C. tries to manage or regulate the right to carry short of the total ban that's now off the table will be "a political decision as a matter of law." He doesn't see a core constitutional rights issue involved in open v. concealed carry. In fact, Palmer thinks that gun carry activists who "walk into Wal Mart with firearms displayed in ready-to-use mode are a disgrace. It's all about look at me, look at me." That sort of activism, Palmer says, "has not advanced the agenda of law abiding people exercising their rights" to self-defense outside the home."
Another of the Palmer plaintiffs, George Lyon, was more succinct about SAF's end game according to Fox News "[Lyon] urged Mayor Vincent Gray, a Democrat, and the Democrat-controlled City Council to “swiftly enact a concealed carry law..."
As for me, concealed carry is of no use, I don't carry a purse.
"[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.
"We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 - Supreme Court (2010) at 3050.
"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282
Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
Here is what the lead plaintiff, Palmer, had to say in Reason magazine about Open Carry:
"Palmer says now whatever way D.C. tries to manage or regulate the right to carry short of the total ban that's now off the table will be "a political decision as a matter of law." He doesn't see a core constitutional rights issue involved in open v. concealed carry. In fact, Palmer thinks that gun carry activists who "walk into Wal Mart with firearms displayed in ready-to-use mode are a disgrace. It's all about look at me, look at me." That sort of activism, Palmer says, "has not advanced the agenda of law abiding people exercising their rights" to self-defense outside the home."
Another of the Palmer plaintiffs, George Lyon, was more succinct about SAF's end game according to Fox News "[Lyon] urged Mayor Vincent Gray, a Democrat, and the Democrat-controlled City Council to “swiftly enact a concealed carry law..."
As for me, concealed carry is of no use, I don't carry a purse.
"[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.
"We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 - Supreme Court (2010) at 3050.
"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282
Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
