UOC Without Calguns

[merle]

imported post

Assuming for a second that the 2A is incorporated and the right to a CCW comes soon.

Do you then begin to OC? If so, then what stops the legislation from passing laws AFTER Nordyke/Sykes?

Right now the argument is no OC because the legislature may get upset and pass anti-OC laws.

But what stops them from doing so later?

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

merle wrote:

Assuming for a second that the 2A is incorporated and the right to a CCW comes soon.

Do you then begin to OC? If so, then what stops the legislation from passing laws AFTER Nordyke/Sykes?

Right now the argument is no OC because the legislature may get upset and pass anti-OC laws.

But what stops them from doing so later?

Nothing. In fact, later it becomes easier.

Right now, we can say, "I can't get a CCW, so I have no other option." If we ever do get 'shall-issue" CCW policy, then the courts can say, "take your test and pay your tax like everybody else."

 

[merle]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

merle wrote:

Assuming for a second that the 2A is incorporated and the right to a CCW comes soon.

Do you then begin to OC? If so, then what stops the legislation from passing laws AFTER Nordyke/Sykes?

Right now the argument is no OC because the legislature may get upset and pass anti-OC laws.

But what stops them from doing so later?

Nothing. In fact, later it becomes easier.

Right now, we can say, "I can't get a CCW, so I have no other option." If we ever do get 'shall-issue" CCW policy, then the courts can say, "take your test and pay your tax like everybody else."

Crap. Forgot about the "tax" part. Not everyone can afford the ~$250 (plus renewal costs) and then there's the delay(s) especially if you move.

 

[cato]

imported post

And CA jurisdictions can require a visit to a shrink; add another $400+. Don't worry, once some form of carry is a right, even IF a license is required for much exercise of that right it will get very cheap and even free for those who can't afford it (Gura will see to that and Constitutional jurisprudence is already on our side on that issue)



artwork by Oleg Volk

 

[coolusername2007]

imported post

cato wrote:

And CA jurisdictions can require a visit to a shrink; add another $400+. Don't worry, once some form of carry is a right, even IF a license is required for much exercise of that right it will get very cheap and even free for those who can't afford it (Gura will see to that and Constitutional jurisprudence is already on our side on that issue)

That's exactly the problem! I have no desire whatsoever to pay a tax to exercise my rights, for any of them! And I don't care if it costs $0.02! Once you do, its no longer a right! This is an extremely dangerous precedent and it must be fought against. Don't accept this argument, its an appeasement move, its political, and its destructive.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

I have no desire whatsoever to pay a tax to exercise my rights, for any of them! And I don't care if it costs $0.02!

+1

Even if it were free, and even if the law says the answer HAS to be "yes"... I don't know if I could stomach the idea of asking permission.

I think New Hampshire's system is about the most intrusive I'd endure without complaining. (1 page application; no test; small fee ~$20; the issuing authority has 14 days to issue the license, or they have to appear in court to prove you're a prohibited person.)

Though it would be mighty tempting to get that paper so I could ignore 626.9 and 12031 while I open carry...

But I'm still skeptical we'll achieve 'shall-issue' anytime soon. I honestly think it's going to get worse before it gets better. We'll get there, but I think it will take longer than most of us expect. Large ships take a long time to turn around... and we've been sailing in the wrong direction for decades.

 

[SDPISTOLGRIP]

imported post

Here is the thing (IMHO). I know Calguns has their agenda, and Open Carry has theirs. I am supportive of both groups and causes. I feel that we all need to work together and support one anothers causes. A nation divided will always fail. So I know there are some key differences of opinion, but I think the "leaders" ( for a lack of a better word) should communicate in order to keep each of their members on the same page. I dont like the trend of everyone bashing the other groups. I know Calguns has some important issues that need to be addressed, and Open Carry has thiers. So maybe I am out of line in my thoughts here, buat as such, I am willing to help with this matter in any way I can. But I am begging (not asking) everyone to please remember we are all on the same team, and we CAN NOT be divided or everything we are all trying to achieve will fail.

 

[cato]

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

That's exactly the problem! I have no desire whatsoever to pay a tax to exercise my rights, for any of them! And I don't care if it costs $0.02! Once you do, its no longer a right! This is an extremely dangerous precedent and it must be fought against. Don't accept this argument, its an appeasement move, its political, and its destructive.

Neither do I.


There are however states which license their state right to arms. The only right to arms we are likely to see in CA with be the Federal One what ever that turns out to be. I wish the federal right was defined in the 18th or 19th Century and not in the political and social climate of the 21st. 5 to 4 was TOO close!!!

SCOTUS said Georgia can license (actually it's a requirement to showgov. ID)it's right to voteto insure one man onevotebut must provide the ID cards free (I believe it's Ga.). - searching for citation - http://www.onebigdog.net/scotus-upholds-id-to-vote-law/and http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/scotus.voter.id/

State and municipalities can license (think parade / rally permits) 1st Amend. activity when it comes to the use of public space, streets and sidewalks. One or a few demonstrators on sidewalks, not interfering with others use of that space, is generally not "licensed".

I'm not really in the know on the full jurisprudence of "licensing" const. activities but it is allowed. Taxes or unreasonable fees for such expensively prohibitive "parade permits" is another story.

I do hope unregulated OC by adults is found to be the National Right from sea to shining sea so the law is clear in all jurisdictions.

 

[coolusername2007]

imported post

cato wrote:

There are however states which license their state right to arms. The only right to arms we are likely to see in CA with be the Federal One what ever that turns out to be. I wish the federal right was defined in the 18th or 19th Century and not in the political and social climate of the 21st. 5 to 4 was TOO close!!!

SCOTUS said Georgia can license (actually it's a requirement to showgov. ID)it's right to voteto insure one man onevotebut must provide the ID cards free (I believe it's Ga.). - searching for citation - http://www.onebigdog.net/scotus-upholds-id-to-vote-law/and http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/scotus.voter.id/

State and municipalities can license (think parade / rally permits) 1st Amend. activity when it comes to the use of public space, streets and sidewalks. One or a few demonstrators on sidewalks, not interfering with others use of that space, is generally not "licensed".

I'm not really in the know on the full jurisprudence of "licensing" const. activities but it is allowed. Taxes or unreasonable fees for such expensively prohibitive "parade permits" is another story.

I do hope unregulated OC by adults is found to be the National Right from sea to shining sea so the law is clear in all jurisdictions.

Horse shoes and hand grenades...it was close enough and it got the job done. If the stateforcesus toget an ID card, even for free,we would need to fight it aggressively.The argument simply doesn't hold water. It does go down the road of privacy issues, and the voting system requires one man one vote which simply doesn't apply to gun carry. Rallies and parades cost the city money to cordon off and close streets, provide security, etc.so it stands to reason some sort offee is in orderto preventunncessarytax burderns to the people. Individual rights don't cost anybody anything, and I do have a right to privacy. As far as other states are concerned, I suspect once SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd to all the states they will have to re-think their unconstitutional tax on the people's rights.

ETA: If anything the Georgia case helps and supports our argument, it doesnot hinder it. It sets the very necessary precendent at the highest level that you cannot tax or charge fees to the individual for constitutionally protected rights.