Stopped while OC ing last night

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

imported post

I live in WI and we are fighting our own battles but I am with you in spirit!!!

Isn't there a state based organization that can step up?

In WI we have several organizations. For example, Wisconsin Carry Inc, which I am a member, has a suit in Federal Court working on overturning WI's GFSZ laws. In addition, we are actively working with candidates to find out exactly where each one stands when it comes to 2A rights. They also got the Republican platform changed so that it supports what we call 'constitutional carry' which means OC or CC with no permit required.

We are very hopeful for this fall.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:

...Isn't there a state based organization that can step up?...

"...can step up?" Yes. But they won't any time soon.

CalGuns Foundation is the big litigation player in CA right now, as Madison Society pretty much has all their funds tied up in Nordyke v King (CA 2A incorporation case).

CGF has interest in open carry litigation, but it's a little ways down their priority list. They far more concerned with CCW reform, AW laws, and fixing the 2A prohibition loophole (where someone prohibited from owning a firearm for X years under CA law becomes permanently banned under fed law).

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

And for anybody wishing to read DeLong in its entirety, I've attached a .doc file.

 

[mjones]

imported post

MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:

Gundude wrote:

MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:

Gundude wrote:

OK, someone edumacate me. Whatwas the case that tested theconstitutionality of (e) checks? I missed that one.

Hey Gundude,

I think this case is it: People v. DeLong (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 786 , 90 Cal.Rptr. 193

Trier of fact is it--no appellate rulings.

markm

From what I could read there, it was about rifles on campus. There was RS involved there. Is there anything about a Starbucks (e) check?

Hey gundude,

Here is the language from Delong that is as close as it comes to a ruling on 12031 (e):

We hold that the examination permitted by Penal Code section 171e and section 12031, subdivision (c) is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

It is not a good ruling for those of us discussing 12031 (e) and OC; however, I think it is the only ruling that relates.

markm

Apology accepted of course I personally agree that an e-check is a violation on 4th ammendment grounds...

Yes, DeLong is the case that determined 'constitutionality' At the time of DeLong 12031(c) is what we know today as 12031(e)


edit: clarified that I think e-checks are a violation