• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How will incorpotation allow for LOC?

onedavetoomany

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
109
Location
Northern California, USA
imported post

Rusty wrote:
I don't quite understand this, but how will the upcoming Chicago case impact the right to LOC in California?
It may not impact it at all. The supreme court will most likely incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states, but allow for "reasonable" restrictions and regulations. Unless they rule that individuals have a right to carry, we will still be in the same situation.

This is one of the reasons I reject the "stand down" argument. We shouldn't count on the Supreme Court to do anything.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

Rusty wrote:
I don't quite understand this, but how will the upcoming Chicago case impact the right to LOC in California?
It's not going to directly or immediately do so. It will open the door for challenges to what will then be unconstitutional law. California has no RKBA in it's state constitution. And since the US 2A is not incorporated, we do not have that right. Once we do, we can legally challenge laws like 12031.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

What McDonald does is allow us to begin fighting the laws in the State of California with the protections forwarded us by the Federal constitution. It may also hopefully start and state the basis of scrutiny that is required to determine whether a law is constitutional.

It would also allow us to sue in both State and Federal courts under an infringement of the 2nd A and not limit us to the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

Rusty wrote:
So this is still quite a long haul on this issue.
Yes and no. RKBA litigation is on the fast track with follow up cases filled or in the wings. The dicta in McDonald will help to point the way too. McDonald also allows us to tie up new legislation with injunctions pending a courts deciding it's constitutionality (a la prop 187 from years past). Which is why I don't want UOCers inspiring any new in the next 6 months and am asking for a stand down for now.
 
Top