Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: CA Law Banning Loaded Firearms in Public Faces Legal Challenge in Federal Court

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17

    CA Law Banning Loaded Firearms in Public Faces Legal Challenge in Federal Court

    http://newsblaze.com/story/201111051.../topstory.html

    A good News Blaze story on fighting the new California open carry ban.

    Let the court challenges to California's new law banning the open carry of loaded or unloaded firearms (and laws banning of any type of carry of any firearm) begin!

  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by disneyr View Post
    http://newsblaze.com/story/201111051.../topstory.html

    A good News Blaze story on fighting the new California open carry ban.

    Let the court challenges to California's new law banning the open carry of loaded or unloaded firearms (and laws banning of any type of carry of any firearm) begin!
    Where is the byline? Who wrote this and the analysis of the SCOTUS ruling as it applies to Heller and McDonald?

    This is NOT journalism. I believe this is marketing ploy to garner more financial support for a Quixotic, ill-timed, and ill-advised lawsuit. I would be real surprised if this wasn't authored by the litigant.
    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

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I think he is a little short on donations, or he would have filed already.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    short on money?

    Maybe the ACLU or the "Brady Bunch" will donate lawyers time and money to help this suit along.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by disneyr View Post
    http://newsblaze.com/story/201111051.../topstory.html

    A good News Blaze story on fighting the new California open carry ban.

    Let the court challenges to California's new law banning the open carry of loaded or unloaded firearms (and laws banning of any type of carry of any firearm) begin!
    Well I think its a great challenge they might have to appeal, but sooner then later California will have to answer
    to the true Constitutionality of PC 12031 and AB 144.
    Other wise California has gone all to he$$.

    Robin47

  6. #6
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    Well I think its a great challenge they might have to appeal, but sooner then later California will have to answer
    to the true Constitutionality of PC 12031 and AB 144.
    Other wise California has gone all to he$$.

    Robin47
    Yes, it's a great challenge.

    But not in this place. (Filed in the wrong district- this alone may have doomed the effort to failure.)
    Not at this particular time. (Filed before a genuine right to carry case has resolved the absence of a right to carry in California.)
    and not this litigant. (One who actually has standing, that can actually fund their own defense, and have earned the widespread support of genuine gun rights advocacy groups.)
    and not this attorney. (Who has no previous wins in the field of the 2A and appears to have been sanctioned for conduct.)
    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

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    First we need SCOTUS to rule the "most notably in the home" doesn't mean "only in the home". Then the flood gates can be opened.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    I think he is a little short on donations, or he would have filed already.
    Probably right.

    He couldn't even raise the miniscule amount of $5,000.00 for his last "heroic effort".

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    63
    I agree that the litigant and attorney for these cases should be carefully chosen. However, this is the "correct" way to get the law overturned. We need a concerted effort to find the right litigant and the right attorney. We need someone who has standing and a pristine background. Ideally, they should already have funding, but maybe a community fundraising effort will work as well.

    BTW, ACLU bashing might be fun but state ACLU chapters have actually defended firearm owners in the past when there were significant privacy or other civil liberty issues. For example, Nevada ACLU successfully argued that a seizure of firearms was an illegal seizure. The official stance of the ACLU is that if there are other civil rights issues around gun control/gun registration ACLU will defend gun owners.

    The ACLU also doesn't actively litigate or even support gun control. They removed the footnote saying they supported gun control from their statement official stance (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con11.htm). However, their official stance is also that Heller was a mistake (http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_p...cond-amendment)

    So, while the ACLU isn't pro gun, they aren't actively anti-gun and they have helped gun owners when their other rights were being infringed. I'd say when it comes to guns, the ACLU is, at worst, slightly negative in stance but in practice, slightly positive.
    Last edited by DoomGoober; 11-09-2011 at 01:43 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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