• 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.

incorporation

C

Chrisc411

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
137
Location
Lemon Grove, Ca.
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?
 
bigtoe416

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 
ConditionThree

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
imported post

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

bigtoe416 wrote:
Cons: State may feel empowered to restrict all forms of carry/ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

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

bigtoe416 wrote:
Cons: State may feel empowered to restrict all forms of carry/ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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".
 
bigtoe416

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top