That's good news glad some one with some guts and the money to do this, is taking place.
Now also maybe some will file some law suits, on or after AB-144 takes place too !
$350.00 is a lot to have to file for ones Constitutional Bill of Rights, to fight these bums !
Robin47
Neither bravery nor finances are at the heart of this. I would say that it's more impatience and imprudence driving the timing rather than strategy.
As for the cost? For $350.00, you too can be a litigant- but this doesnt mean that you will win or even that you have any standing to be heard by the court. $350.00 is only for the first projectile to be lobbed in the first skirmish of the first battle in a war. (My first consultation with an attorney cost me over $500.00 and I didn't take my complaint to law, even though I was entitled.) So, this issue of money is going to be a sore one with this attempt to spit in the California anti-gun establishment's eye, because the litigant does not have the resources necessary to see this through to the end. We know this, because he has been soliciting funds on the internet and through facebook for better than six months. While we were assured that these funds were being collected for the purposes of paying an attorney for their services, the complaint itself reveals that the litigant has filed this
pro se. Even if these monies are reserved for appeals, I believe they are short of having enough to move forward with this in any meaningful way by several tens of thousands of dollars.
Giving the litigant the benefit of the doubt, and assuming this is a resounding win, the best case scenario is that we have loaded open carry in California restricted to areas outside of school zones since 626.9 will still be in effect. In most metropolitan areas, it will still be impossible to carry outside a locked case. This fact, will not go unnoticed by our legislators, and I believe there will be renewed interest in expanding school zones to protect the children from the sight of an exposed firearm.
26350 will also stand. Why would a prohibition on UOC be important when we have loaded open carry? If you are transporting through school zones to get to a location where you may loaded open carry you have a problem when you arrive. The instant you unlock your firearm case in public, you violated the law immediately before the firearm has been loaded with ammunition.
With this case, the cart is before the horse. What we really needed before attacking loaded carry, was a case affirming the right to bear a firearm outside of the home. With that, we would be in a better position to tear down the imaginary and arbitrary safety bubble around schools and defang loaded weapon prohibitions. If this complaint does win, I think California, at least for a brief interval, will look more like Wisconsin before they passed their concealed carry law- this has significant limitations not everyone will love.