• 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.

Supreme court ruling vs. Ab1934 (open carry ban)

Don Tomas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
104
Location
, ,
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:

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
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.
 

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
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.
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
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
 

cato

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

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
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?
 

merle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
109
Location
Tahoe, Nevada, USA
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.
 

RMafera

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
34
Location
San Diego, California, USA
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
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
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:

bigtoe416

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

Rusty

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
121
Location
San Jose, California, USA
Right to arm bears?

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"
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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!!!!!
 

PincheOgro1

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
420
Location
Perris, Ca., California, USA
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!
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
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?
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
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
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
Top