- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,726
There is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
Sgt Knaub et al popping the champagne..
There is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
Sgt Knaub et al popping the champagne..
In strategy terms, they didn't quash open carry now because they want us to waste even more time and money getting an open carry case up to them. There's zero possibility they'll uphold a right to open carry or significantly impact California's open carry ban.On a cursory read the only small good thing I can say is at least they went out of their way to state they were only ruling on concealed carry and were not touching upon visible carry.
So, we need someone in MD to apply for an "open carry only" request permit on their "restrictions."
When that is denied, then they have standing.
Somewhere Kamala Harris is sitting around pleasuring herself.
There comes a point where judicial rulings no longer mean much. Legislation does far more. With 40+ states having CCW or no-permit required carry, there's a strong case for treating the holdouts exactly the way that the sates pushing segregation in the 1960s were treated. Legislation similar to the Voting Rights Act - any legislation from those states is presumed illegal until proven otherwise, and the burden of proof is on the state.
We need to go on offense.
The California state Senate voted 28-8 Wednesday (6/1/2106) to exempt itself from the pointless gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the populace. Legislators apparently think they alone are worthy to pack heat on the streets for personal protection, and the masses ought to wait until the police arrive.
This does not bode well for DC either...
Perfect summation.
They needed 190 pages to reach their conclusions? Jesus.
CA of which the 9th Circuit in SanFran has jurisdiction ...
Since Peruta is CA-originated and the CA legislature has now deemed themselves 'exempt', as a lay person I would think that it would be ripe to overturn on appeal to SCOTUS ... as in the Equal Protection Clause part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws" ... and I would assume, equal enforcement.
Caveat: wait until Trump appoints Scalia's replacement before filing an appeal.
EDITORIAL: One law for us, another for you
California’s legislative hypocrisy a failure of democracy
I can't fact-check this right now, but if what's written in that WT editorial is true, rebellion in CA is appropriate.
I doubt MD legislators have any real objection to this sort of thing. They certainly think like CA legislators when it comes to citizen self-defense.Yeah but too bad the vast population of CA actually must think this sort of law is ok, otherwise they wouldn't have passed it. Only in the Golden State.