I think you and CGF put way too much credibility into Alan Gura. Wasn't it Alan Gura who botched the oral argument for incorporation through Privileges and Immunities? As I recall, SCOTUS rejected Gura's oral and incorporated through Due Process.
SCOTUS did not reject PorI. Tell me, Sons,
how do you count to Five without PorI? Justice Thomas would not have joined the majority if PorI was not brought up. He was quite clear in his
Saenz v. Roe dissent that PorI is the only method he would support for incorporating enumerated and unenumerated civil rights against the states and local government.
Also, Gura only had 20 minutes of argument time. His time was divided by motion of the NRA to divide his argument time. Essentially, Gura/SAF and the NRA-ILA counsel met together in November 2009 as there was the Oak Park NRA case joined up with McDonald. NRA-ILA legal counsel (who, btw, is separate from the main ILA political lobbying division) advised Gura to focus mostly on P&I for his legal brief, so that the NRA-ILA litigation team can file a party amicus brief (which is an oversized brief of NRA-ILA as a party to the appellate case).
The NRA-ILA litigation team, in a bit of dirty pool, put in a motion to the Supreme Court asking them to divide Gura's argument by 1/3rd and give it to Paul Clement, the former Solicitor General who argued for remand in the Heller case and kept repeatedly bringing up machine guns to the court on orders from the Bush Justice Department. Why? "He focused too much on P&I and we think the court would benefit from a full briefing", despite the fact that A) NRA-ILA Litigation team told Gura to actually focus on it so that they can focus on due process and B) Gura can argue due process practically in his sleep.
Duncan v. Louisiana makes it real easy for him to argue.
Josh Blackman's Legal Blog for more details.
Predictably, what happened? The August 2010 edition of First Freedom shows exactly what happened. NRA-ILA litigation team took all of the credit for "winning the case" on "their argument", even though without Gura's argument on PorI, Thomas would not have voted our way. How many mentions of Gura himself? Just once. Lots of full color interviews with Stephen Halbrook and Paul Clement, though, about the things they did to get the case going.
We'll never know at this point how Gura would have argued if he had the whole 30 minutes, but he would have likely did more interspersed language about due process incorporation. That being said, he was arguing solely to Justice Thomas, as the Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Kennedy were already in the bag, it's just that Thomas doesn't ask questions during oral arguments.
Unless, of course, should I dare say, that Gura's botched job was intentional? And the strategy was to stumble through the Privileges and Immunities argument so that Due Process would be that much more appealing to the justices!? After all, doesn't the licensing approach that CGF is pushing support a solidification of the Due Process approach? That is what you and CGF is asking everyone to do: support the approach the government can reasonably infringe upon our 2A rights.
So wait, you're basically accusing that guy that saved your 2nd amendment rights from the dustbin of the "collective rights" theory of basically taking a fall? You realize that what you're essentially accusing him of is professional legal misconduct against his own client's interests, right, you know, stuff that can get him disbarred?
Bateman v. Perdue was filed Gura and SAF in North Carolina to attack the infringement problem. A pure carry ban during states of emergency, specifically, which happened all too frequently in NC. That is a pure carry case with no licensing to mess it up. The question is whether or not it'll get to SCOTUS. North Carolina may waive the white flag, or the Legislature may repeal it in the next session. We'll see.
The only shame here is the fact that you didn't know enough about the underlying factors of
McDonald, and the situations behind it, which has been repeatedly explained over and over again. For a guy who is quite high and mighty about the constitution and "no fees or licensing, ever!!" and have the temerity to throw wild accusations of professionally actionable misconduct towards Alan Gura, you don't seem to have the breadth of the legal knowledge to make a coherent argument that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions.
And as far as you stating that I was incorrect concerning this statement,
"We can possess a gun in our homes without specific permission. We can openly carry a gun without the need for applying for permission. Where permission is needed is when we want to carry concealled outside the home."
You, sir, are incorrect.
I never stipulated loaded or unloaded.
So, let me get this right, Sons: you'd rather carry an unloaded paperweight that takes 2.5 seconds to load (which a guy with a knife can stab you or a family member half a dozen times before you can load, if you can even successfully do so) than have the ability to not only openly carry unloaded as a political statement (and be able to carry within a thousand feet of a school to boot!), but also have a concealed loaded backup gun too? I can pull out a handgun from a concealed position and pointed at someone for less than a second and shoot the guy with a knife before he can stab me.
Oh, and I love the idea of OCing throughout San Francisco, too.
Not to mention that
Heller struck down a "you must keep it unloaded" requirement.
You are incorrect in your statement, "Where permission is needed is when you want to carry LOADED outside of your home."
Loaded open carry does not require permission in most unincorporated areas of California.
Deceptive in spirit. PC12031 applies to both incorporated areas and places where the discharge of firearms is prohibited. From a pure geographical landmass perspective, most of California's landmass you can open carry loaded. But do people really live in these areas in a populated scale?
