View Single Post
  #42  
Old 11-28-2012, 10:34 PM
1JimMarch 1JimMarch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We're missing something major here.

This panel cannot approve California's shall-issue system without also addressing cases where carry is completely banned - because Hawaii is in the mix and as a practical matter they're in exactly the same situation as Illinois.

What I mean is, the Kachalsky panel had the option of saying that may-issue satisfied a basic "carry right". It's horsecrap of course but they went there.

This panel can't go there in lockstep with Kachalsky.

They not only have Hawaii to contend with, there's also a few California counties that are zero-issue by local policy too.

Where Hawaii is concerned, they only have two choices: support some kind of "carry right" OR try and write "bear arms" completely out of the 2nd.

I think this will influence the California-related decision.

If the California state defendant wins (based on Kachalsky-type "logic") but Hawaii loses ("hey, there has to be SOME carry right!") then it would have an immediate effect on myself (living in AZ full-time since 2008) and Gray (based in WA state since forever). We have no carry rights in California whatsoever - we're barred from CCW access. If this panel were to support SOME kind of carry right for Hawaii Gray and I would immediately win - the total ban on our carry in Cali would become unsupportable.
Reply With Quote