Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: incorporation

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, Ca.
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    with the up coming cases and the hope of 2A incorporation i'm just curious of the all the potential pros for us and if there are any cons of said incorporatio?
    "Sooner or later we all must die. Warriors choose to do so on their feet, standing between their enemies and those they hold dear. With a weapon in their hands. Cowards choose to do so on their bellies. Unarmed."
    - Dave Gell (inspired by author David Weber)

    "The tragic history of civilian disarmament cries a warning against any systematic attempts to render innocent citizens ill-equipped to defend themselves from tyrant terrorists, despots or oppressive majorities,"
    - Daniel Schmutter

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Pros: Ability to launch challenges to innumerable California restrictions on gun ownership.

    Cons: State may feel empowered to restrict all forms of carry/ownership of firearms.

  3. #3
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Pros: Ability to launch challenges to innumerable California restrictions on gun ownership.
    This is pretty much dead on.

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Cons: State may feel empowered to restrict all forms of carry/ownership of firearms.
    Incorporation of the 2nd could mean that the state could not ban all forms of keep and bear... however, the state might end up favoring some form of carry to the exclusion of others... Specifically- California could go like Texas or Florida went... Licensed concealed carry with no lawful means to carry exposed.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Pros: Ability to launch challenges to innumerable California restrictions on gun ownership.
    This is pretty much dead on.

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Cons: State may feel empowered to restrict all forms of carry/ownership of firearms.
    Incorporation of the 2nd could mean that the state could not ban all forms of keep and bear... however, the state might end up favoring some form of carry to the exclusion of others... Specifically- California could go like Texas or Florida went... Licensed concealed carry with no lawful means to carry exposed.
    But wouldn't incorporation makes Texas and Florida laws more challenge-able in court. Because they are requiring to you to pay to exercise an incorporated right? And open carry is the "natural" method of "bearing arms".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    In a word...yes.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    I just re-read my reply to the initial post and realize I was answering a question that wasn't asked. If incorporation fails then the state may feel empowered to restrict all forms of carry/ownership of firearms. From my perspective there are no cons to incorporation. My apologies for the confusion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •