imported post
N6ATF wrote:
I still wonder why the message is being sent to the legislature via Sykes that first and foremost, we want the RKBA a taxed privilege so that few can afford (either morally or financially) to do it. Will the (or can the) complaint be amended once the RKBA is incorporated that strikes down CCW taxation?
If UOC/626.9 were two of the first things to be targeted to bring us back to tax-free LOC statewide, then I could say to myself, yeah, the RKBA for all, no matter race, color, creed, or tax bracket, is being restored here. But as it stands, it looks like we will have to suffer with the PKBA for years to come.
Very good questions! We are not going for the whole kit and caboodle with one bear case. The best chances of success come with keeping the issues simple and clear before the court. After all they are addressing this for the FIRST time. They get to decide what the Right encompasses.
Heller is a great example. Ask for too many idealistic things and you might have lost the swing vote (kiss RKBA away). Heller won the core of home possession and established some basic principles. Heller was awarded a license although licensing of a right was not addressed by the court in that case. Heller also was the only surviving plaintiff. You may recall the case which won in the DC appeals court was called "Parker". Heller made it to the Supremes BECAUSE he was the only plaintiff who applied for a DC carry license and was denied.
The courts may allow licensing of RKBA. But to insure the greatest chances for success it makes jurisprudential logic to ask for the same as the Supremes awarded Heller (the only case law we have on the 2A which we can rely on to influence lower courts)
Now down at the district and appeals level in the 9th circuit we in Sykes are asking for a license which exempts the bearer from 12031 and 626.9 and 171b PC. Going straight for a kill on 12031 and 626.9 would likely end in the case being dismissed as there is an avenue (licensing) to be exempt and exercise your right. Do we agree with that? No. But the courts are likely to permit regulation IF you have a method of exercising the protected activity (a license).
That is why Sykes is what it is. Sykes is also a LOC case for if it becomes shall issue then loaded and exposed licenses are shall issue. And now entersequal protection jurisprudence. Is it fair that someone in Shasta County gets to have a loaded and exposed license and you inSan Diego can't? Future caseswill also address the fees (taxes). Some day licenses may get found to be unconstitutional too.
Licenses also are only good for pistols in CA. What if you have a long arm? Long arm carry inTexas is OC.Reenter equal protection issues again. What sense is mandating concealed carry only iflong arms are openly carried. What about people from out of state? There are a whole host of issue to be litigated. Once McDonald opens the flood gates NATIONALLY things will progress at lightning speed (lightning court speed that is).
I'm not a constitutional attorney. But I do trust Alan Gura, a very young man, to get as much of his game plan through as possible. And that game plan will naturallychange as new case law points the way to the next target (low hanging fruit).
We are only 7 months away from a McDonald decision. We have NEVER had a RKBA in CA. Is it too much to ask to stand down on UOC, to not tempt our enemies to ban OC, and to preserve UOC as lawful so it can be used as political leverage tool post McDonald? That's not a lot of time to ask for. It is not a lot to ask members of OCDO to be part of the coalition team and wait for the word. We all do want the same thing.
