• 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.

Irony

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
See http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=433595

At almost the exact moment that AB-144 progressed in the legislature, Judge England was ruling that Yolo Counties policies survived constitutional scrutiny because one could carry an unloaded firearm in public.

Notice of appeal has already been filed. Onward and upward.

This is the second case that states CA may-issue is legal because UOC is an alternative. (Peruta being the other one.)
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
A new reality show to air soon

A new reality show is in the making. It will be called "Dancing with the Judges". The dance will be called "The judicial sidestep". The winner gets a 2 week, all expenses paid vacation in Seeley, Calif. (Google earth)
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
That is ironic. Too bad they cannot see the forest through the trees...UOC is not the exercise of one's 2A rights. But why would we expect them to know that, they wear black dresses and pretend their "judgements" (aka opinion) somehow carry more weight than the Constitution itself.

ETA: Curious thought...has any state achieved shall issue conceal carry permitting through the court system only? Or has it been a combination of court opinions and legislative action?
 
Last edited:

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
Under the statutory scheme, even if Plaintiffs are denied a
concealed weapon license for self-defense purposes from Yolo
County, they are still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon
nearby their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in
circumstances that may occur in a public setting.

To me, this is the reason why the right people's strategy is fundamentally flawed. From my chair (based on two opinions so far), the better strategy would be to annihilate 12031(e), abolish UOC through the courts, then call for state wide LOC to force the legislature's hands into shall issue so our guns can go back into hiding "for the children." This strategy IMO dovetails much better with McDonald and still accomplishes CCW for those who don't want to LOC. In the end, we still get both, its just that LOC would be first.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
To me, this is the reason why the right people's strategy is fundamentally flawed. From my chair (based on two opinions so far), the better strategy would be to annihilate 12031(e), abolish UOC through the courts, then call for state wide LOC to force the legislature's hands into shall issue so our guns can go back into hiding "for the children." This strategy IMO dovetails much better with McDonald and still accomplishes CCW for those who don't want to LOC. In the end, we still get both, its just that LOC would be first.

I tend to agree with your assessment of what the SCOTUS is trying to insinuate in Heller and McDonald. Time will tell if getting CCWs first or LOC first was the right strategy.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
I tend to agree with your assessment of what the SCOTUS is trying to insinuate in Heller and McDonald. Time will tell if getting CCWs first or LOC first was the right strategy.

Yeah, I think its pretty clear. I don't know of any state that has achieved shall issue strictly through the courts, which seems to be the strategy here in the PRK. I could be wrong, but I think all others have gotten there through the legislative process, and possibly helped with court wins.

The problem is one way could achieve loaded carry in short order, and the other way might achieve loaded carry within the next decade, if at all.

IMHO 12031(e) and UOC are low hanging fruit, while in this state CCW is a long, hard road.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
The problem with a legislative solution to LOC/CCW is that what the legislature gives, the legislature can take away. It's only a privilege. That's what the 40 states that have fair systems really have now. If we get a win in the Supreme Court, nobody can take it away. Only then does it truely become a Right.
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
I don't expect any relief from Legislature. The only place for relief is through the court system.
Two courts have said that UOC satifies our 2nd amendment right, but the Legislature continues with AB 144. A court case similar to the one for the internet ammo bill will be needed stop it.
I think all the carry cases pending were expected to be denied and appealed upward.
The ultimate relief will have to come from SCOTUS, the same way Heller and McDonald progressed. They both lost in the lower courts.

Just my thoughts
 
Last edited:

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
The problem with a legislative solution to LOC/CCW is that what the legislature gives, the legislature can take away. It's only a privilege. That's what the 40 states that have fair systems really have now. If we get a win in the Supreme Court, nobody can take it away. Only then does it truely become a Right.

SCOTUS is NOT going to decide CCW is protected under 2A, Scalia said as much in McDonald. CCW is going to have to come from the legislatures. Why? Because it has ALWAYS been a licensed privilege. LOC is entirely different however. As we all know LOC is the 2A and ALWAYS WAS. Now don't get me wrong, I personally believe CCW is a natural law right, I'm just being realistic.

As for the bolded part...huh? Courts do not create rights any more than legislatures do.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
I don't expect any relief from Legislature. The only place for relief is through the court system.
Two courts have said that UOC satifies our 2nd amendment right, but the Legislature continues with AB 144. A court case similar to the internet ammo bill would stop it.
I think all the carry cases pending were expected to be denied and appealed upward.
The ultimate relief will have to come from SCOTUS, the same way Heller and McDonald progressed. They both lost in the lower courts.

Just my thoughts

I don't expect it either. But you never know what will happen once LOC is the only option and all the Bradys and statists can no longer bear to see what we bear. Then and only then will the legislature give the go ahead for shall issue, that is if they ever do.
 
Top