randian
Regular Member
I said "more doable", not "likely".
Even in states like Texas and Florida, both of which are shall-issue CC states where it's legal to own machine guns, it will be a hard fight to get OC.
-
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.
-
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.
Only Maniacs Open Carry
- Thread starter hgreen
- Start date
Even in states like Texas and Florida, both of which are shall-issue CC states where it's legal to own machine guns, it will be a hard fight to get OC.
cato
Newbie
I abhor licensing for the same reasons I believe you do. There is however a very good argument, based on history and jurisprudence, that Alan Gura's approach is the most likely to succeed. He's batting 100% in SCOTUS. I would not bet against him. This forms the main ingredient in my brand of cool aid and one which I hope Federal judges like too. Licensing will be addressed later...baby steps will get us there...
UOC will give us more road blocks in the short term which will have to be fought. I dislike cc with a passion, but it will ease CA toward its constitutional carry future (I hope).
Last edited:
wildhawker
Regular Member
The reality is that there are only 3 paths to non-licensed carry as a rule:
1. Alan Gura (and progeny) cases incrementally seek to undo the anti-carry statutes and jurisprudence (that are largely based on junk science and pre-Heller constitutional theory). The compounding effect of the cases and legislation (norming) creates an additional lever in both legislative and jurisprudential venues to use for broader legislation and litigation until the societal and constitutional margin of "bear" is reached.
2. Constitutional amendment which expressly protects non-licensed bearing of [some defined classes of] arms.
3. Civil war and ratification of a constitution which expressly protects non-licensed bearing of [some defined classes of] arms.
Anyone who thinks that we're going to get non-licensed, non-TPM regulated carry at USSC in the next 10 years is optimistic beyond reason (even if it were possible in that timeframe, a system of unlicensed carry "too soon" [for societal acceptance] increases the likelihood that an amendment working the other direction would be raised and ratified).
In the meantime, and as we fight for non-licensed carry over the longer term, should we not work to arm the greatest number of US residents using every possible manner, making the bearing of arms (and corollary commerce, training, and culture) a part of their daily lives, as may be possible in their jurisdiction and suitable to their lifestyle?
Please, as we continue to press forward, let not the perfect get in the way of the armed enough.
-Brandon
1. Alan Gura (and progeny) cases incrementally seek to undo the anti-carry statutes and jurisprudence (that are largely based on junk science and pre-Heller constitutional theory). The compounding effect of the cases and legislation (norming) creates an additional lever in both legislative and jurisprudential venues to use for broader legislation and litigation until the societal and constitutional margin of "bear" is reached.
2. Constitutional amendment which expressly protects non-licensed bearing of [some defined classes of] arms.
3. Civil war and ratification of a constitution which expressly protects non-licensed bearing of [some defined classes of] arms.
Anyone who thinks that we're going to get non-licensed, non-TPM regulated carry at USSC in the next 10 years is optimistic beyond reason (even if it were possible in that timeframe, a system of unlicensed carry "too soon" [for societal acceptance] increases the likelihood that an amendment working the other direction would be raised and ratified).
In the meantime, and as we fight for non-licensed carry over the longer term, should we not work to arm the greatest number of US residents using every possible manner, making the bearing of arms (and corollary commerce, training, and culture) a part of their daily lives, as may be possible in their jurisdiction and suitable to their lifestyle?
Please, as we continue to press forward, let not the perfect get in the way of the armed enough.
-Brandon
Last edited:
They have perspective
I think Calguns gives lots of perspective outside of an open carry box.
I like it as my first "firearms" forum, learned lots and lots of advice from a variety of people, like "polling the audience".
I gotta agree with "the likelihood that an amendment working the other direction would be raised and ratified"
I think Calguns gives lots of perspective outside of an open carry box.
I like it as my first "firearms" forum, learned lots and lots of advice from a variety of people, like "polling the audience".
I gotta agree with "the likelihood that an amendment working the other direction would be raised and ratified"