Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Supreme court ruling vs. Ab1934 (open carry ban)

  1. #1
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    106

    Supreme court ruling vs. Ab1934 (open carry ban)

    Well Ladies and Gentlemen, the Supreme Court has upheld and affirmed 2a rights by applying the right to keep and bear arms to States and Cities. The Chicago gun ban would now be deemed, illegal and unconstitional. Hooray! As for AB1934....let's watch as it goes down in flames. Democrats would have to be complete idiots to support that bill given the SCOTUS ruling, especially given that this is an election year.
    Last edited by Don Tomas; 06-28-2010 at 04:37 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ontario, California, USA
    Posts
    67
    even if they pass it, it would be over turned at some point right?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by halo6941 View Post
    even if they pass it, it would be over turned at some point right?
    Yeah, in about 10 or 15 years.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189
    Quote Originally Posted by halo6941 View Post
    even if they pass it, it would be over turned at some point right?
    Perhaps, but not based only on McDonald. McDonald, like Heller, asserts our right to keep handguns in our homes for defense and doesn't say anything about our right to carry. Both rulings mention the right to "bear" arms, but they don't go into exactly what that means, because that wasn't the question at hand.

    There is going to be a lot more litigation to come to determine exactly what kinds of "reasonable restrictions" our governments can place on keeping and bearing arms. All the court has said so far is that the right to have firearms for self defense is an individual right and neither the feds nor the states can institute a blanket ban on the ownership and possession in the home of a whole category of common firearms.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    I think CA will pass the open carry ban anyway. Obviously politicians today dont care about passing unconstitutional laws. Why stop now ?

    They will simply be playing to their base and it works.

    No matter though, we in California just got a HUGE victory.
    Hey CA Patriot,

    Your are so right!

    Our only hope is for the governator to veto the bill.

    markm

  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by halo6941 View Post
    even if they pass it, it would be over turned at some point right?
    Because the core right is for self defense an unloaded gun may not qualify for that strict protection. 12050 licenses are vulnerable as they are not shall issue with objective standards and also possibly 12031.

    It could also be struck down as carrying an unloaded gun in CA could be a form of political speech/protest and therefore 1st A. protected. We'll have to see what happens if they pass it...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Timer View Post
    Yeah, in about 10 or 15 years.
    What we need to do is to continue to email, snail mail, call and fax representatives. This time, mention that in the light of the McDonald's ruling, the Saldana bill becomes a non-issue and any law they will pass will ultimately be responsible in helping banckrupt the state further by putting in motion that which would result in loss of tons of money through litigation.

    On second thought, this is the Republik of Kalifornia.

    On another thought, it is election year. If we can pull one or two votes to our side that would be nice.

    Or maybe, we can sue the state AND the legislature in whole or as individual legislators during or after their term of office, for consciously and knowingly passing laws contrary to McDonald's AFTER the SCOTUS made the ruling. I am not a lawyer but can it be done?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    106
    The plot thickens......

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    You can only hope that this law goes into effect (in hopes it pisses off the people who tried passing it in the first place).

    It will be illegal to carry, openly, an unloaded sidearm. Because you (or people visiting the state) can't get a CCW permit, the only option will be to carry a loaded sidearm.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    34

    Question I was thinking...

    First of all...WE WIN!!! WOOHOO!!! *Puffs on Rockey Patel Vintage 1992*

    Sorry, just had to get that out of my system. So I've been thinking about this a lot lately. We're getting our rights restored to be able to keep and bear arms for self-defense, right? Now stay with me because here comes a hypothetical situation...

    What if they say, "Fine, we'll just drop AB 1934 and give you LOC, but not change CCW issuance policies." That would mean that carrying a firearm is going to be just as impossible and impractical as it is with UOC due to all the school zones and whatnot. I personally feel that this would be unconstitutional in light of our victory today, but let's be honest; this is what Kalifornia does. Is this possible or am I just getting paranoid about this?

    Mafera

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Put your thinking caps on regarding "EXPERIMENTATION AND VARIATIONS"

    Everyone needs to put their thinking caps on and begin to apply the section I have provided to facts and circumstances that currently exist in California.

    Begin by looking at the VARIATIONS in who can carry, where it is permissible and in what counties. Then look at the VARIATIONS in how GOOD CAUSE statements are considered by different law enforcement agencies. When you're done, consider the current legislation to ban UNLOADED OPEN CARRY for what it really is, LEGISLATIVE EXPERIMENTATION by the State of California.

    Here is the quote from the decision:

    "Third, JUSTICE BREYER is correct that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated. Incorporation always restricts experimentation and local variations, but that has not stopped the Court from incorporating virtually every other provision of the Bill of Rights. “The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” Heller, 554 U. S., at __ (slip op., at 64). This conclusion is no more remarkable with respect to the Second Amendment than it is with respect to all the other limitations on state power found in the Constitution."
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 06-28-2010 at 07:53 PM.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by RMafera View Post
    What if they say, "Fine, we'll just drop AB 1934 and give you LOC, but not change CCW issuance policies." That would mean that carrying a firearm is going to be just as impossible and impractical as it is with UOC due to all the school zones and whatnot. I personally feel that this would be unconstitutional in light of our victory today, but let's be honest; this is what Kalifornia does. Is this possible or am I just getting paranoid about this?
    Anything is possible. I'd be extremely surprised if the legislature suddenly realized that they were violating everybody's civil rights. I'd also be surprised if suddenly there was a majority in both houses that would repeal 12031. We're most likely going to win through the courts, not via our "representatives".

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    121

    Right to arm bears?

    Quote Originally Posted by swillden View Post
    Perhaps, but not based only on McDonald. McDonald, like Heller, asserts our right to keep handguns in our homes for defense and doesn't say anything about our right to carry. Both rulings mention the right to "bear" arms, but they don't go into exactly what that means, because that wasn't the question at hand.

    There is going to be a lot more litigation to come to determine exactly what kinds of "reasonable restrictions" our governments can place on keeping and bearing arms. All the court has said so far is that the right to have firearms for self defense is an individual right and neither the feds nor the states can institute a blanket ban on the ownership and possession in the home of a whole category of common firearms.
    Actually, they said that the 2nd amendment in its entirety is incorporated, so that is the right to keep and bear arms.

    As for what bear means, if we turn to Heller:


    " c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
    these textual elements together, we find that they guaran-
    tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
    case of confrontation."


    So clearly Heller recognizes the right to "carry weapons in case of confrontation"

  14. #14
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
    Actually, they said that the 2nd amendment in its entirety is incorporated, so that is the right to keep and bear arms.

    As for what bear means, if we turn to Heller:


    " c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
    these textual elements together, we find that they guaran-
    tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
    case of confrontation."


    So clearly Heller recognizes the right to "carry weapons in case of confrontation"
    No matter how sensible people read it, the anti's will continue to flaunt it and pass unconstitutional laws restricting firearms saying "if you don't like it take it to court". Unfortunately, how many of us will be wrongly prosecuted and deprived of our liberties because the anti's and their government stooges have way more financial resources (stolen from our own wallets under color of authority) than we do?

    While McDonald is a great step and a WIN, the fight will continue for decades. THIS battle (at SCOTUS) is over but....the war continues, and will do so in skirmishes across the country. Those skirmishes will not be casualty free, good men (and women) will fall during the fight.

    BUT THE FIGHT MUST BE FOUGHT!!!!!

  15. #15
    Regular Member PincheOgro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Perris, Ca., California, USA
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Tomas View Post
    Well Ladies and Gentlemen, the Supreme Court has upheld and affirmed 2a rights by applying the right to keep and bear arms to States and Cities. The Chicago gun ban would now be deemed, illegal and unconstitional. Hooray! As for AB1934....let's watch as it goes down in flames. Democrats would have to be complete idiots to support that bill given the SCOTUS ruling, especially given that this is an election year.
    Regardless of what they do, they are idiots!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Just my opinion, but:

    After this SCOTUS ruling, what would happen with a lawsuit for failure to receive a CCW if one is not legally prevented?

    Doesn't this ruling negate the "just cause" or "may issue" reasoning? If the 2nd is incorporated, requiring a reason for a CCW is against the law according to the Constitution, which is now incorporated.

    What would be the outcome of a lawsuit against the sheriff for denying for lack of a "good reason"? Since the 2A is now incorporated, it is a "fundamental" right. Rights and reasons for exercising them are exclusive, therefore "may issue" can't legally stand, correct?

    I'm guessing that a lawsuit would be shot down, but how far would this go on appeal? How can an appeal court NOT give "may issue" the boot now that the 2A is incorporated?

  17. #17
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    Just my opinion, but:

    After this SCOTUS ruling, what would happen with a lawsuit for failure to receive a CCW if one is not legally prevented?

    Doesn't this ruling negate the "just cause" or "may issue" reasoning? If the 2nd is incorporated, requiring a reason for a CCW is against the law according to the Constitution, which is now incorporated.
    This is already in the works to define 'good cause' in CA as 'personal protection' via Sykes v. McGinness

  18. #18
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by mjones View Post
    This is already in the works to define 'good cause' in CA as 'personal protection' via Sykes v. McGinness
    Also here:
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...GO-CCW-LAWSUIT

  19. #19
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by flintlock tom View Post
    Ed's suit is on much broader terms then Sykes - which will hopefully help the battle here in CA. Sadly, Ed's suit still has at least a couple years to go to play out in our favor whereas Sykes is explicitly on hold pending Nordyke which is on hold pending McDonald.

  20. #20
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Concealed carry is not the right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment nor considered by SCOTUS in Heller or McDonald. The right to have firearms for self defense is what SCOTUS has incorporated and that "reasonable" restraints can be made upon that right.

    It's a win, but not the end of the fight. Daley in Chicago is committed to continuing to pass onerous regulations and may now go after those who supply firearms in the theory that their ability to sell firearms isn't protected. The DC goons are also committed to continuing their onerous methods to keep people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Californias rabid anti's will be no less committed and every gain will require a legal challenge at great expense.

    Incorporation is a major step but there are many, many smaller steps that must still be made.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    L.A. County, California, USA
    Posts
    149
    "snip... Actually, they said that the 2nd amendment in its entirety is incorporated, so that is the right to keep and bear arms.

    As for what bear means, if we turn to Heller:

    " c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
    these textual elements together, we find that they guaran-
    tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
    case of confrontation."


    So clearly Heller recognizes the right to "carry weapons in case of confrontation" ...snip"
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    Rusty, I suspect you are more right than we may all imagine. Because the 2A is now incorporated, JUDGES are now significantly more free than they were previously (only a very few enlightened judges actually considered the 2a in their ruliings) to examine "Keep and Bear Arms" plus "Shall Not Be Infringed" in every ruling from now on. This includes injunctions to prevent laws from taking effect.

    Also, consider that, according to another thread on this forum, CA AB2223 (Lead Ammo Ban) just died in committee. I have always held that with each major SCOTUS case in favor of gun rights, there will be the intransigent jurisdictions such as Washington D.C. and Chicago, but there will also be jurisdictions (state and local) that will actually make an attempt to re-evaluate their laws and proposed laws in light of the ruling and will either adjust them or drop them entirely. Several communities in Illinois (Wilmette was one IIRC) did exactly that by dropping their handgun prohibitions in light of Heller.

    Incorporation of the 2A against states and localities will now be a much more significant discussion point in the consideration and passing of any gun and ammo laws throughout the land. Some (but certainly not all) anti-gun/ammo laws that may have been adopted will be dropped, adjusted or stopped before they have to go through lots of risky (and costly in these times of tight State and local budgets) legal challenges. There will be a lot of Attorneys General, D.A.s and local jurisdiction legal counsels who will rightly tell their elected representatives that likelihood of victory on many of their anti-gun/ammo is now greatly diminished.

    So, while some of the bigger issues will likely take a while to resolve, I believe a lot of smaller scale bad stuff may fall by the wayside before they ever (if ever) work their way through the long, slow court process.

    The SNOWBALL (in our favor) has been pushed down the hill and is picking up mass and speed. A lot of folks will be smart enough to get out of the way. Mayor Daley of Chicago has got to be one of the dumbest people on the planet, in my opinion.

  22. #22
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138
    http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?...&printable=yes

    "...The new lawsuits likely to develop will come against the background of a new desire, among devotees of gun rights, to carry their firearms in public places. Gun owners held a large “piece rally” in Washington recently, and many guns were holstered for the occasion, to put new emphasis on the building resistance to gun-carry restrictions. A number of gun owners showed up last summer at “Tea Party” rallies, wearing their guns. Communities that interpret the McDonald decision as being limited to having guns in the home may conclude that they can ban guns anywhere outside the home. Any ordinances to that effect, though, are surely going to be tested. (And, as Justice John Paul Stevens noted in his dissent on Monday, there is a passing hint in the Heller decision of 2008 that maybe the personal right to a gun is not limited to having it at home. In that comment, the Heller opinion said the individual right it was declaring was “a right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Lawsuits may be needed to clarify just what that right entails.)...."

  23. #23
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    It's going to be an interesting era in firearms laws and liberties that's for sure. At this point I've only skimmed the decision and dissents but am now reading in whole, the entirety of the SCOTUS ruling. As a conservative "right wing extremist" (DHS Certified) it is an AMAZING work to read. I'm on page 52 of the PDF file and JUST finished Justice Alito's (majority) opinion (a lot those pages were consumed by the summary which precedes the full opinion but I read that as well) and am about to begin reading Justice Scalia's work. A large portion of Alito's writing (the majority opinion) discussed the racist roots of gun control and the 14th amendment. A devastating history lesson for the "anti" side. Adding insult to injury, the majority opinion directly addressed the modern racial impact by "spanking" Chicago for the high murder rate perpetrated upon it's citizens and that 80% of the victims were black AND that they needed their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms because their political representatives have failed them.

    Mayor Daley, did YOU READ the decision?

    I don't think we'll have much legal action here in Oregon because of this decision, our gun laws are pretty reasonable for the most part. Our issues are mostly with lower jurisdictions trying to impose their own rules in violation of state law. However, our state law allows local jurisdictions to regulate the carry of loaded firearms by non concealed license holders and THAT may well be challenged now since an unloaded firearm isn't much good against an immediate threat.

    California, New Jersey, and a few other states, as well as DC, Chicago, the city of New York, and others of their ilk.....they're going to have to decide how much they can afford in litigation of their eggregious restrictions.

    I can see California being sued by someone like me who desires to return (not that I do) and many of my weapons are not legal there because of their limitations on high cap magazines, "assault weapons", etc. Or by a citizen of another state who is barred from entering lawfully because their personal defense sidearm is banned there (high cap mag, taurus judge, etc.).

    One thing that REALLY has me wondering..... a challenge to the BATFE and their $200 "tax stamp". If it's a fundamental right and I'm not a threat to society, then why should the federal government be able (or a state for that matter with incorporation) be able to infringe upon a fundamental right with a heavy handed restriction which was not among the four items (nor similar to any of them) that the SCOTUS has said could be a reasonable restriction?

    Yup, it's gonna be enjoyable watching the Helmke's of the country crying in their soy milk.

Posting Permissions

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