View Single Post
Old 11-20-2012, 12:42 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,542
iTrader: 1 / 100%

Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Short of a Federal Court applying a cluebat upside the head, some sheriffs and police chiefs will continue their restrictive issuance policy. The clue will be a Supreme Court opinion specifying that 'bear' is a Constitutional right.
No, it will be a Supreme Court opinion upholding the right to carry in public in a lawsuit directly against them. Nothing less will be heeded by these sheriffs. They will continue as they have even in the face of a direct Supreme Court ruling as long as the ruling isn't directly against them. See Chicago.

Winning Richards is just the beginning of the process of securing the right to carry in public here in California. The entire process will take many, many years, and may not be possible at all if a change of the guard occurs at the Supreme Court before we can bring the direct case I speak of above to the Supreme Court. The time required is such that such a change of guard is very possible.
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote