Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 11-01-2011, 6:32 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtrainer View Post
The new word is idiocracy. This means knowing but getting stuck on the next step: doing.

The subject (person) of this thread is not stuck on the doing stage. He has a good chance and is taking action.

Don't forget the history of the US Supreme Court and how changes in precedent has occured throughout its history.

Could there be a shift in the wind with regard to the Supremes decisions? Only the brave will test the winds to find out if a breeze will carry "him" to our (his) destination back to our Rights.
Being brave is admirable, taking on Mike Tyson when you've never boxed is idiocy. Just sayin...
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-01-2011, 6:35 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,864
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Being brave is admirable, taking on Mike Tyson when you've never boxed is idiocy. Just sayin...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 11-02-2011, 7:02 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,525
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
I tried to obliquely say this in a previous post.

The real danger of Nichol's lawsuit is that he may well lose open carry for CA forever and put open carry nationally at the whim of the various legislatures.

In Nunn v. State it was determined that concealed carry can be prohibited if open carry is available. Some have read this as "we have a right to carry a gun but the state can regulate the manner of carry" others have said that it means "open carry is the constitutional minimum but concealed carry can be regulated."

If these yahoos go and lose big, as trying to file such a lawsuit with $5k in the bank suggests they will, they may well cement the former interpretation rather than the latter.

If instead they wait and take one piece of the pie at a time they could probably take the whole pie from the antis.

It is entirely possible that Nichols will get what equates to the exact same ruling as Nunn but in reverse, "as long as concealed carry is an option there is no problem prohibiting open carry."

If instead we work on setting the right to carry as a general standard and concealed carry with a license as acceptable the we could have gone after open carry as a "minimum constitutionally required unlicensed alternative." but if these guys lose and lose big that avenue might be cut off and open carry will also be licensed and/or prohibited as any of the various state legislatures choose.


The people who should most be up in arms about this lawsuit are those who are open carry advocates but are not as near-sighted as Nichols.

You are mostly correct about the dangers posed by a guy who isn't capable. What Gene has to say about this is also correct. And yes, this worries me also.

But, you have mis-characterized what was actually said in Nunn, & what SCOTUS had to say about Nunn. The Georgia Supreme Curt said nothing at all about "if open carry is available." What they said was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunn v. State
We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.
(emphasis in original)


Clearly, the court isn't saying anything conditional here. Carrying openly is what the GA & US Constitutions intend to protect as the Right when it comes to "and Bear."


Also, from Heller:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Heller Decision
In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural] right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia], shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
(emphasis in original)


And if that's not enough for you, SCOTUS went on to quote State v. Chandler:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Heller Decision
Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”

I'm not making stuff up here. I'm not seeing anything about "either-or" here. What I'm seeing is SCOTUS quoting cases that make it VERY clear that Open Carry is what "and bear" really means to them. So, I'm also seeing nothing to support the idea that carrying concealed enjoys any Constitutional protection. There's a reason the District & Appellate Courts keep agreeing with the Bradys & denying the suits trying to force Constitutional protection for Concealed Carry. Its because Heller & McDonald DON'T provide any support for the idea.

Now, if someone can show me where "either/or" appear in Heller or McDonald, or in the cases they quote so approvingly, or show me where that appears anywhere else in "court cases, founding documents, or contemporaneous writings" (to quote dantodd), I'll be more than happy to change my thinking.

But not until then.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
1A permits can be required for certain marches and protests. What is your reasoning that the courts will hold the 2A to a much higher standard than the 1A?

I don't think the 2A should or will be be held to a higher standard than the 1A. I don't think slappomatt thinks so either. They key word in your reply is "certain." I.E. While SOME exercises of the 1A can require a permit, permits cannot be required for ALL exercises of the 1A. If a permit, even a Shall-Issue permit, becomes the Minimal Constitutional Standard for "and bear,", then the 2A would enjoy substantially less protection than the 1A. Less than ANY other provision of the BofR, in fact. As I look at what is actually in Heller, I'm seeing zero support for the idea that SCOTUS intends to do any such thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
If the suit even attempts to take two bites of the apple it would be worse than doomed in my opinion. Once carry is codified as protected outside the home, THEN the GFSZ may be shown to effectively effectively nullify a fundamental right. There is a reason Heller didn't ask for more relief than it did. We are laying bricks, and the first row is the most important.

Agree entirely. Step One must come before Step Two.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
First, it's hard to say what resistance we'd face in court to a suit challenging the federal and state GFSZ laws. But we need to expect that any major and worthwhile 2A litigation is destined for SCOTUS. Taking a lawsuit all the way up to SCOTUS is a several million dollar proposition. The bill on Heller was around $3.5 million.

Second, the original version of the federal GFSZ law was tossed by the Court. It was then amended by Congress to avoid the problem the Court had with it.

In a straight up 2A challenge to GFSZ laws, the government will have its opportunity to argue state interest. A lot will depend on what level of scrutiny courts settle on for 2A regulation, but given the "sensitive places" language of Heller, you may be overestimating the vulnerability of GFSZ laws to judicial challenge, especially if they except carry with a LTC.

Yes, Heller did cost a lot. That's not to say that follow on suits HAVE to cost as much. A large part of that cost was the fact that Heller was indeed so very new & precedent setting.

Yes, the Federal GFSZ was modified. I don't of anyone who thinks that the mod really matters. I.E. That it will withstand a serious challenge. This would be even more true when/if "and bear" is re-established as an Enumerated Right.

Yes, level of scrutiny will matter. The dissent in Heller II is right on the money. Still, I'm not seeing a big chance that "state interest" will carry the day. Even intermediate scrutiny requires the presentation of FACTS to justify infringements. The same ol' "THE SKY WILL FALL IF WE DON'T LIMIT GUNS IN THIS <fill in the blank> WAY" isn't going to cut it anymore. Chicago is trying this kind of nonsense in Ezell. The Distinct Court is playing along. They're both been slapped down by the 7th. Circuit. They're both going to going to be slapped down again. Since the facts don't support infringements, we'll win. If not at the lower levels, then at SCOTUS.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 11-02-2011, 8:02 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,838
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrbroom View Post
According to their web page, they have raised $4700 so far for the suit.. What would a case like this roughly cost overall?
Having been involved in a suit against a local hospital's "Foundation", the lawyer gave us general suit costs at about $50k and up, especially if court appearances are involved.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 11-02-2011, 8:22 AM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,864
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrbroom View Post
According to their web page, they have raised $4700 so far for the suit.. What would a case like this roughly cost overall?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
Having been involved in a suit against a local hospital's "Foundation", the lawyer gave us general suit costs at about $50k and up, especially if court appearances are involved.
Depending on the skill of the opposing counsel through discovery and trial 100k wouldn't at all be surprising. Then there are the appellate costs…
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 11-02-2011, 9:00 AM
dvcrsn dvcrsn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 80
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanPedroShooter View Post
I felt the same way. The orginal requests for money to fund the last of these nichols/birdt cases came in part, on emails with the NRA MC letterhead.... The NRA put a stop to that, but I go to a different MC now. Between SBOC (of whom some members I call my friends) and this guy, who I understand is no longer a member of SBOC (and I think suing them over the domain name), I ashamed that a lot of this foolishness orginates on my home turf.
According to Gene McCarthy--while he attended some of the functions, he never was a member and the fight over the name has been resolved--Nichols gave up-
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 11-02-2011, 9:03 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,663
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
... Carrying openly is what the GA & US Constitutions intend to protect as the Right when it comes to "and Bear."...What I'm seeing is SCOTUS quoting cases that make it VERY clear that Open Carry is what "and bear" really means to them. So, I'm also seeing nothing to support the idea that carrying concealed enjoys any Constitutional protection....
Nope, sorry, but there's really nothing in what you have quoted from the decision in Heller and the cites in Heller to an 1846 case, Nunn, and an 1850 case, Chandler, that leads to the conclusion that ultimately the Supreme Court will necessarily find specifically that the lawful open carrying of firearms, either with restrictions or without restrictions, is protected by the Second Amendment. Nunn and Chandler were thus cited in Heller to show the long history of the Second Amendment being understood as describing an individual and personal right independent of service in a militia.

Heller ruled that the right to keep and to bear arms as described in the Second Amendment is an individual and personal right independent of service in a militia. Heller thus put to rest the collective right theory. Then McDonald applied the Second Amendment to the States through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But neither case ruled on the scope of governmental restrictions of the right to keep or the right to bear arms -- except for the particular restrictions before the Court in each case.

So the questions of what governmental restrictions on the right to keep and the right to bear arms will pass constitutional muster remain open. Based on established principles of constitutional law, we can reasonably expect that a discretionary "may issue" LTC system must eventually fall. We should also be able to expect that no complete ban on carrying a gun in public can be sustained. But beyond that, there will be a great deal of hashing out to be done.

Will current "shall issue" LTC systems be sustained as constitutional? I'd say there is a good chance. Will the prohibition of open carry in States with a constitutional "shall issue" concealed carry permit system survive constitutional challenge? I'm not going to bet against it. Could the Supreme Court find the Second Amendment right to bear arms satisfied if one could carry openly but not concealed, or concealed but not openly, or either openly or concealed, but in any case only with a "shall issue" license to carry? That's another possibility.

In any case, charging forwarded in the belief that ultimately unregulated, unrestricted open carry is a foregone conclusion is an excellent way to crash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
...Yes, Heller did cost a lot. That's not to say that follow on suits HAVE to cost as much. A large part of that cost was the fact that Heller was indeed so very new & precedent setting....
Actually in the world of Supreme Court litigation, Heller wasn't really all that expensive. It cost an awful lot of money to take pretty much any case up to the Supreme Court, and in general only new and precedent setting cases will be going there.

I've reviewed a lot of legal bills in my day and have a pretty good idea of what litigation, especially appellate litigation, costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
...Yes, the Federal GFSZ was modified. I don't of anyone who thinks that the mod really matters. I.E. That it will withstand a serious challenge....
But do you know anyone whose judgment, based on training and experience, in such matters is reliable. Given the "sensitive places" language of Heller, I think we could expect a serous fight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
...Yes, level of scrutiny will matter. .. Still, I'm not seeing a big chance that "state interest" will carry the day. ...
You might not be seeing it, but is there any good reason why we should give much weight to your opinion on the matter?
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 11-02-2011, 11:06 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,525
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
You might not be seeing it, but is there any good reason why we should give much weight to your opinion on the matter?

Well, I have the actual quotes from SCOTUS. In contrast, what you have (at least, all you have presented) is nothing. The actual words of SCOTUS just don't mean what they clearly say just because you say they don't. You have no citations. No articles. No anything.

I would recommend that people give weight to my conclusions because they are based on the actual words of SCOTUS. That might just be me, however.

My opinion on the GFSZs is shared by Gene. Actually, I formed my optimistic view of their (imminent?) demise from Gene's words.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 11-02-2011, 12:07 PM
edwardm's Avatar
edwardm edwardm is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tacoma!
Posts: 1,835
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
Well, I have the actual quotes from SCOTUS. In contrast, what you have (at least, all you have presented) is nothing. The actual words of SCOTUS just don't mean what they clearly say just because you say they don't. You have no citations. No articles. No anything.
The Raisuli

The mere citation of a case in an opinion does not reflect the Court (or any court) embracing the all holdings of the cited case. The citation may refer to a single holding, or it may be cited for other purposes (i.e. historical more so than legal), as fiddletown noted.

It is the context of the Nunn and Chandler citations within Heller that matters, not the fact that the Court cited them. The Court looked to Nunn and Chandler to support the individual rights model of the 2nd Amendment.

That said, it is not unlikely (but also not guaranteed) that in a future case re: carry outside the home, that the court wouldn't go back to one or both in support of outside-the-home-carry.

Before your interpretation and understanding may carry any force of law on the Federal level, the proper courts first need to be presented with the relevant questions and then a supportive opinion must issue from that court or those courts. Those questions have not yet been presented for adjudication, though they are well on the way.
__________________
More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called “Irish Democracy”—the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people—than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 11-02-2011, 3:11 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,663
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
...Well, I have the actual quotes from SCOTUS. In contrast, what you have (at least, all you have presented) is nothing. The actual words of SCOTUS just don't mean what they clearly say just because you say they don't. You have no citations. No articles. No anything....
[1] No, you really don't have the actual words of SCOTUS.

You have the words of the Supreme Court of Georgia in Nunn (1846) and the words of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in Chandler (1850) being quoted by SCOTUS in Heller. And those decisions were quoted not in the context of adopting the result, i. e., the state court in each case voiding laws barring the open carrying of firearms. They were quoted by SCOTUS in the context of demonstrating that historically the Second Amendment has been understood as describing an individual right.

[2] And I don't need citations or articles to show that on the face of things you have misread the citations of SCOTUS to Nunn and Chandler.

The question of the whether open carry is constitutionally protected was not before SCOTUS in Heller. However, the question of whether the Second Amendment describes an individual right was. The language of the respective state courts in Nunn and Chandler was supportive of the conclusion of SCOTUS in Heller that the Second Amendment indeed describes an individual right. But the open carry issues addressed by the respective state courts in Nunn and Chandler had nothing to do with any issue actually in front of SCOTUS in Heller.

[3] In any case, I have over 30 years experience practicing law, reading court decisions and applying those decisions to real matters in real life to effectively further the interests of my clients.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
...I would recommend that people give weight to my conclusions because they are based on the actual words of SCOTUS....
Actually, as shown above, your conclusion aren't really based on the words of SCOTUS. Your conclusions are based on your misunderstanding of the use by SCOTUS of a couple of citations to a couple of cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardm
The mere citation of a case in an opinion does not reflect the Court (or any court) embracing the all holdings of the cited case. The citation may refer to a single holding, or it may be cited for other purposes (i.e. historical more so than legal), as fiddletown noted.

It is the context of the Nunn and Chandler citations within Heller that matters, not the fact that the Court cited them. The Court looked to Nunn and Chandler to support the individual rights model of the 2nd Amendment.
...
Exactly.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 11-02-2011, 3:25 PM
SonnyD SonnyD is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 13
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Mulay, you just got owned!!! (points and laughs)
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 11-02-2011, 4:22 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,037
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

heller does define "to bear". As in to carry about, on the person or in pocket. Saw it when I read the majority opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 11-02-2011, 5:21 PM
JoeJinKY JoeJinKY is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 851
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
By what means do you suggest we 'go to the public'? ... The print and broadcast media in those areas are uniformly anti-gun, to the point that they REFUSE paid pro-gun information/advertising.
You MUST be joking! In the past 72 hours, the entire WORLD has heard about Mr. Crockett Keller's radio ad wherein he refuses to teach a CCW class to "socialist liberals" and "Non-Christian Arabs". He didn't do anything but spend $280.00 on a 30-second radio ad. The audio clip went VIRAL for FREE through You tube, and if you bother to check it out, you'll see exactly how much public exposure you can get for under $300.00 You don't even have to spend that much. Make your own videos using a camcorder and a script.

If CalGuns established a You Tube Channel and made some You Tube videos, straight forward FACTS about gun ownership, self defense, the 2A, the RKBA, truthful "Good Cause,", the folly of 626.9 and 12031, UOC and everything else, and you put them up on You Tube, you would very effectively reach the public as people "Like" your channel and "Share" your message, and the mainstream media would be left sitting with their thumbs up their posteriors.

Awaken the California population to the fact that they should be able to LOC/LCC in a "Shall Issue" state just like the 42 others, and they'll begin to wonder why they CAN'T defend themselves. Point out in clear, easy-to-understand short videos how the "wild West Shootouts" LIE has never materialized in ANY state where the citizens are trusted to carry personal defense weapons.

Geez! I don't have to tell you what to put into your You Tube videos. The entire message can be found in the threads on this board!

Does CalGuns have a Facebook page? Heck! I made a few simple videos, put them up on You Tube, and I can't tell you how many responses I have received in support of them. I don't even have a "cause." I just made them because I'm so damned glad to be living in Free America now!

One of the biggest mistakes a lot of large, powerful companies are making, is ignoring the social networking sites that are SO POWERFUL at swaying opinions. Look at what happened to Olive Garden Restaurant. ONE brain dead manager told a Kiwanis Club member that she couldn't display the American Flag in the restaurant during a meeting, and the WHOLE COUNTRY knew about it in about four hours. It was so effective, the management of Olive Garden issued a public statement testifying to their devotion to America and their company policy which (they say) does NOT forbid the display of the American flag in any restaurant.

Folks, I admire your efforts and Gene and you guys ... you're real troopers for your tireless efforts to sway the minds of socialists in positions of power, but if you want Californians and Americans behind, you, F**K the media! go to Facebook and You Tube, and make your case!

Last edited by JoeJinKY; 11-02-2011 at 5:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 11-02-2011, 5:44 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,544
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeJinKY View Post
Awaken the California population to the fact that they should be able to LOC/LCC in a "Shall Issue" state just like the 42 others, and they'll begin to wonder why they CAN'T defend themselves.
I believe this is a fundamental mistake - most California residents have been brainwashed into 'guns are bad'.

'Casting seed upon barren ground' comes to mind.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 11-02-2011, 5:53 PM
JoeJinKY JoeJinKY is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 851
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

and the REASON for that is right in front of you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
By what means do you suggest we 'go to the public'? ... The print and broadcast media in those areas are uniformly anti-gun, to the point that they REFUSE paid pro-gun information/advertising.
Think OUTside of the box!

What would you do if you opened a chain of hamburger stores and found that The print and broadcast media in those areas are uniformly vegetarian, to the point that they REFUSE paid pro-hamburger information/advertising. Close your doors?
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 11-02-2011, 5:55 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,663
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
...Casting seed upon barren ground' comes to mind.
Or, "..neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

ETA: What can help is educating people one at a time. In the last ten years, as an instructor, I've introduced hundreds of people to shooting and guns. If each of us actively works to be a good ambassador for shooters and shooting, and introduce non-shooters to shooting, I believe that we can have an important, positive effect on the wafflers and fence sitters.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by fiddletown; 11-02-2011 at 6:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 11-02-2011, 6:03 PM
Stonewalker's Avatar
Stonewalker Stonewalker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Joej, as librarian said, this is a worldview problem. The need to use force against a bad guy doesn't exist in many Californian's worldviews. In this context, guns must be bad, because if they aren't bad, that means that the misguided person must reconsider their entire worldview. It's a difficult thing to do. I did it. Born and bred Calfornian here, as was my dad, and his parents did the Grapes of Wrath thing. California used to be different... anyways, my point is I used to be moderately anti-gun, and now I think felony-prohibition is unconstitutional and that there wouldn't be a problem with deregulating machine guns.

That being said, I think a CGF youtube channel would be awesome. Low priority (being volunteer and non profit and all that), but awesome.
__________________
member: Electronic Frontier Foundation, NRA, CGF

Deer Hunting Rifles? "Let's get rid of those too" - Adam Keigwin, Chief of Staff for Senator Leland Yee
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 11-02-2011, 6:27 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,544
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeJinKY View Post
and the REASON for that is right in front of you!



Think OUTside of the box!

What would you do if you opened a chain of hamburger stores and found that The print and broadcast media in those areas are uniformly vegetarian, to the point that they REFUSE paid pro-hamburger information/advertising. Close your doors?
Someone opening a business would do the research to know about that problem before opening.

Guess what ...

Right now, our message is subject to attack from the anti-civil rights crowd; what we would like to say is fact is seldom so clear.

We NEED the court decisions to point out the falsehoods proposed by the anti-gun writers. However the message gets delivered, it has to be unimpeachably right - and we're about 2 Supreme Court opinions away from that position.

You need to remember that most people just don't care about guns; ordinarily, guns have nothing to do with keeping a job or raising a family. I see a connection; you appear to see a connection; you and I and people like us are quite a minority.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 11-02-2011 at 6:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 11-02-2011, 6:38 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeJinKY View Post
and the REASON for that is right in front of you!



Think OUTside of the box!

What would you do if you opened a chain of hamburger stores and found that The print and broadcast media in those areas are uniformly vegetarian, to the point that they REFUSE paid pro-hamburger information/advertising. Close your doors?
But if vegetarians only had a vegetarian menu their whole lives and now see an alternative and the alternative tastes great, what do you think will happen?

Its why we as gun owners have no problem taking people out one by one. Ask Justice Kagen.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 11-02-2011, 6:49 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Mulay,

I hope you are correct and SCOTUS chooses to adopt the views of GA and LA Supreme Courts in the carry case they eventually accept. However; this is far from being assured at this juncture. I would very much like to get "carry" guaranteed as a standard and then fight about what form afterward.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 11-02-2011, 7:19 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeJinKY View Post
and the REASON for that is right in front of you!



Think OUTside of the box!
Unfortunately you need to be open to outside the box realities. In California even our Republicans vote anti gun. Microstamping, lead ammo bans in condor zones, and .50 Cal bans were all signed by a Republican. The only Republican to vote against HR 822 in committee was (R) Dan Lungren (who also is the one of the few politicians who has actually confiscated registered firearms.

In 49 states the Open Carry movement has had no ill effect. Here it ended the open carry of all firearms, loaded or not.

What works in Kentucky does not work here. Gun owners are a minority here.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 11-02-2011, 7:34 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
What works in Kentucky does not work here. Gun owners are a minority here.
And our moonshine isn't as good. We're working hard to fix what's wrong with CA.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 11-02-2011, 7:41 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,663
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
And our moonshine isn't as good....
Our "moonshine" is a greenish, leafy substance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
...We're working hard to fix what's wrong with CA.
We are -- very hard. Which is why this lawsuit gnaws at us so badly. It's not well calculated to help.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 11-02-2011, 8:01 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,544
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Since I brought up 'market research', here's a quick and dirty post on voters, costs, and 'new media'.

CA voter registration

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/...r-odd-year-11/

Let's look at this to start. (Numbers rounded, may not add up)

There are ~23 million eligible voters in the state; only about 73% are actually registered.

ETA - note that "D" or "R" proclivities are not definitive markers for anti- or pro- gun opinions, for individuals; they are, however, pretty good markers for the group attitudes.

Statewide we have ~44% Democrat, 31% Republican, and ~20% 'no party preference'. The other roughly 5% are not really negligible, but they're not a 'block' that can be marketed to.

Use Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara and San Francisco counties as the SF Bay Area. That's about 4 million registered voters, ~53% D, 19% R, 24% NPP.

Use Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties as 'LA area'. That's about 8.3 million registered voters, 41% D, 34% R, 20% NPP

In the 2010 election, 10 million of 17 million registered voters actually participated. About half voted by mail. For the major state offices - Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, the D candidates received about 5 million votes to 4 million for R candidates. (54% to 41%)

In the 2008 Presidential election, about 14 million of 17 million registered actually voted, about 42% by mail. About 8 million, 61%, cast votes for Obama, 5 million, 37%, for McCain

Spending money

The Nation has an article about financing the 2010 election, on line at http://www.thenation.com/article/156...ection-complex

It says "Political advertising has become an enormous cash cow for it—roughly two-thirds of the campaign spending this year flowed into the coffers of TV stations; the final figure is likely to be well above $2 billion."

Why spend 2/3 of 2 billion dollars on 'traditional' media?

They also say "As ads become the primary source of political information, we create a politics based on lies or, at best, decontextualized quarter-truths. Campaign ads are unregulated for truthfulness, unlike commercial advertising. Three decades ago Ogilvy and Mather executive Robert Spero determined that if political ads had to meet the same Federal Trade Commission criteria as commercial ads, all of them would be rejected as fraudulent. The regulation of commercial ads may be more lax today, but we doubt that any study of political ads in 2010 would regard them more favorably than Spero did."

Let's look at 'new media'.

http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/faceb...ts-facts-2011/

says about 30% of Facebook users are 35+; the core users are 18-24

Public Policy Institute of California says -- www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=262 --

"AGE GAP STILL APPARENT IN REGISTRATION RATES, LIKELIHOOD OF VOTING. Although the 2008 presidential campaign has sparked enthusiasm among young adults, this group is still registering to vote at a much lower rate than older adults. Compared to Californians age 65 and older, a stunningly lower number of 18 to 24 year olds are registered (92% vs. 56%). Likely voter rates reveal an even greater disparity: A mere 24% of adults ages 18 to 24 are considered likely voters, while 78% of adults age 65 and older are likely to participate in elections."

That group of core users of 'social media' isn't a good fit for political messages - and if they don't vote, they can't change the legislators and Sheriffs and State officials - at least, not before we think we'll get the court decisions we expect.

That doesn't mean that additional avenues should not be tried; some kind of access to younger people ought to have an influence on them when they are older. But it's not a near-term solution to reversing years of negatively biased media and educational portrayals of guns and gun owners.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 11-02-2011 at 8:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 11-02-2011, 8:04 PM
kimber_ss's Avatar
kimber_ss kimber_ss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,302
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It appears to me that surgical precision is required(in the early attempts) in order to reach "critical mass".
__________________

Last edited by kimber_ss; 11-02-2011 at 8:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 11-02-2011, 8:56 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeJinKY View Post
You MUST be joking! In the past 72 hours, the entire WORLD has heard about Mr. Crockett Keller's radio ad wherein he refuses to teach a CCW class to "socialist liberals" and "Non-Christian Arabs". He didn't do anything but spend $280.00 on a 30-second radio ad. The audio clip went VIRAL for FREE through You tube, and if you bother to check it out, you'll see exactly how much public exposure you can get for under $300.00 You don't even have to spend that much. Make your own videos using a camcorder and a script.
You know, considering your pro-support of Mr. Keller in the off-topic forum, and considering your location, you should well know that "gaining controversy" doesn't work in California.

Tell you what, let's put an NRA Certified Instructor who's a trainer for one of the counties for carry licenses, and have him spout off about an "armed citizen is a polite citizen", and mention that he won't train in classes Muslims, Arabs, or gays. That'll get a lot of attention right? The wrong kind of attention.

Keep in this mind, sonny, 26 percent of the US supports the ability for a government to ban handgun possession in the home. That's about 78 million or so people. Guess where many of those people are concentrated?
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 11-02-2011, 10:59 PM
radioman's Avatar
radioman radioman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Yucca Arizona
Posts: 1,804
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Back to the case at hand, IF he were to win the bradys would lose their minds, here they just get AB144 passed and they get stuck with LOC. and what would they do? spend money to overturn it, all the way to the supreme court. we could get LOC and shall issue and all thanks to the bradys. as I tell me kids, shoot for the moon you'll hit something.
__________________
"One useless man is called a disgrace, two become a law firm, and three or more become a Congress."
the new avatar is a painting from 1906, escape from San Francisco.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 11-02-2011, 11:33 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,663
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radioman View Post
Back to the case at hand, IF he were to win the bradys would lose their minds, here they just get AB144 passed and they get stuck with LOC. and what would they do? ...
Fantasies can be fun. It's kind of like buying a lottery ticket and thinking about how you'll spend the winnings. But the reality is that the odds of winning this litigation are probably worse than hitting a lottery jackpot.

Much is at stake for us here, and we should not be making important strategic decisions on the basis of wishful thinking.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 11-02-2011, 11:54 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radioman View Post
I tell me kids, shoot for the moon you'll hit something.
In this case, most likely your own foot.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 11-03-2011, 3:46 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,525
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardm View Post
The mere citation of a case in an opinion does not reflect the Court (or any court) embracing the all holdings of the cited case. The citation may refer to a single holding, or it may be cited for other purposes (i.e. historical more so than legal), as fiddletown noted.

It is the context of the Nunn and Chandler citations within Heller that matters, not the fact that the Court cited them. The Court looked to Nunn and Chandler to support the individual rights model of the 2nd Amendment.

The key word being "may." To claim that the references to Nunn, etc are for their "individual rights model"value, & just that is (IMHO) a bit of a reach. Were there no other cases that show the 'individual rights' aspect? Nothing that addresses that, but not the 'carry' aspect. That SCOTUS picked those three cases is (again, IMHO) indicative.

And of course, lets not forget the fact that the Court cited those cases twice. Yes, it may have done so just to show the "individual rights" aspect of the Right. Or, they may have been wanted to give a rather strong hint as to their view of "and bear" & chose this way to do so since "and bear" wasn't an issue directly before them.

Which adds to my guess about their meaning. "And bear" didn't have to be addressed at all. Yet, it was. Now, that may have been just as a sop to Kennedy. Or, it may have been as I guessed it is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardm View Post
That said, it is not unlikely (but also not guaranteed) that in a future case re: carry outside the home, that the court wouldn't go back to one or both in support of outside-the-home-carry.

Before your interpretation and understanding may carry any force of law on the Federal level, the proper courts first need to be presented with the relevant questions and then a supportive opinion must issue from that court or those courts. Those questions have not yet been presented for adjudication, though they are well on the way.

All of this is quite true. You've no doubt seen that "guaranteed" was in no way a part of anything actually said by me. Neither was "foregone conclusion" (not your error, I know). Guessing what SCOTUS will do isn't quite as hard as interpreting the Oracle at Delphi, but it isn't a lot easier either!

So, feel free to regard my predictions as guesses. But, I do have actual words backing up those guesses. I am not just making a claim with nothing to back up my thinking. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. I just don't think so. And until I see something substantial in contradiction, something that really shows that Nunn & the others were cited just to show the 'individual rights' aspect, I'm going to keep thinking so.

Up until SCOTUS puts us all in our place!


Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Mulay,

I hope you are correct and SCOTUS chooses to adopt the views of GA and LA Supreme Courts in the carry case they eventually accept. However; this is far from being assured at this juncture. I would very much like to get "carry" guaranteed as a standard and then fight about what form afterward.

True, it is not assured. Again, I could easily be less than right.

But, there is value in doing things in the right way & the right order. Presuming I'm right, & that Nunn & those other cases were quoted for a reason, then going for LOC first has great value.

It would be the easier path to take. This isn't guesswork. Look at all the failures we've had so far. Look at how the Bradys have quoted Nunn & all those other cases against us. Look at how the Bradys have quoted SCOTUS in their efforts to show that CCW is not Constitutionally protected. Look at how the courts have accepted that claim. Judges & justices try to divine meaning from SCOTUS Rulings also. So far, they've all come to the same conclusion I have:

There just ain't any Constitutional protection for carrying concealed.

But there is protection for carrying openly. Or such is the hint from SCOTUS. That being the case, then isn't the obvious path to follow the one SCOTUS wants us to follow?

And, would it really be such a bad thing if CCW wasn't Constitutionally protected? As I said before in another thread, LOC first has the virtue of have the sequence correct. It doesn't mean LOC only. History shows us that when LOC is locked in, reasonable CCW regs follow.

The reverse cannot be said about CCW first. That could easily lead to a license being the Minimum Constitutional Standard. Which would weaken the Right tremendously. Making the 2A different from everything else in the BofR. Which could also (easily?) lead to UNreasonable regs. I see no value in giving the antis even a small lever to wield against our efforts to strengthen the 2A.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 11-03-2011, 8:32 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,663
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
...To claim that the references to Nunn, etc are for their "individual rights model"value, & just that is (IMHO) a bit of a reach. ...
Actually, it's not at all. Let's look at the exact context of the Court's citation to both Nunn and Chandler in the majority opinion in Heller.

NOTE: For the purposes of the following analysis I've used this text available as a PDF file on the SCOTUSblog. Page number references are to the page number appearing on each page of the majority opinion (not the Adobe page counter).

Meaning of the Second Amendment

On page 2 of the majority opinion (the Opinion of the Court), the Court begins a lengthy discussion of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Beginning on page 7, the Court discusses the meaning of the phrase, "keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment.

Following some discussion of "keep", the Court turns to the question of what "bear arms" means. In the course of that discussion the Court writes (pp 11 -12):
Quote:
....In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia....That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.[FN:9] These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia....
There in footnote 9 we see the Court's first citations to Nunn and Chandler, together with five other state court decisions all illustrating that the phrase, "to bear arms" was understood to mean the carrying of arms outside of a militia.

Historical Interpretations

Following the extensive discussion of the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court looks at the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted historically, beginning thus (pg 32):
Quote:
...We now address how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century....
After some discussion of post ratification commentary, the Court turns to a survey of pre-Civil War case law, noting (pp 37-38):
Quote:
...The 19th-century cases that interpreted the Second Amendment universally support an individual right unconnected to militia service....

Many early 19th-century state cases indicated that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was an individual right unconnected to militia service, though subject to certain restrictions...
And now we once again meet Nunn and Chadler. The Court proceeds to cite five cases, in addition to Nunn and Chandler illustrating the courts in that period understood the Second Amendment to describe a individual right unconnected to service in a militia.

Limitations on the Rights Described by the Second Amendment

The Court notes (pg 54):
Quote:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2;...
And so here we see the Court's third citation to Nunn and Chandler, with some other authorities for the proposition that historically courts have found some limitation of the rights described by the Second Amendment to be permissible.

Finally, the Court cites Nunn one more time (pg 57):
Quote:
Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly...
Analysis

The Court in Heller cited both Nunn and Chandler, in each case together with other cases, three times: first for the proposition that the reference in the Second Amendment to a right to bear arms was understood to be a right to carry arms that was unconnected with service in a militia; second, to show that historically courts have understood the rights described by the Second Amendment to be individual rights independent of service in a militia; and third, that courts have sustained limitations on the rights described by the Second Amendment and state constitutional analogs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
...And of course, lets not forget the fact that the Court cited those cases twice. Yes, it may have done so just to show the "individual rights" aspect of the Right. Or, they may have been wanted to give a rather strong hint as to their view of "and bear" & chose this way to do so since "and bear" wasn't an issue directly before them....
Actually, the Court cited Nunn and Chandler three times, together with some other cases (and Nunn a fourth time). I've shown exactly in what context and for what purposes the Court did so.

The Court first cited Nunn and Chandler in a footnote with several other cases to demonstrate that the bearing of arms was understood to be an individual, personal matter and not limited to service in a militia. This of course is part and parcel of demonstrating that the Second Amendment describes individual and not collective rights.

The second citation to both cases, with some others, demonstrated that courts understood the Second Amendment to describe individual rights.

The third citation to both cases, with some others, demonstrated that the courts at that time believed that the rights described by the Second Amendment or similar state constitutional provisions could be subject to limitations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
...feel free to regard my predictions as guesses. But, I do have actual words backing up those guesses....
Well you are guessing. But your guess aren't really backed by the words of the Court in Heller, as I've shown.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by fiddletown; 11-03-2011 at 12:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 11-03-2011, 9:10 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
The third citation to both cases, with some others, demonstrated that the courts at that time believed that the rights described by the Second Amendment or similar state constitutional provisions could be subject to limitations
I don't believe you have made a case that those limitations could include a denial of carry outside the home. If it exists, then what IS the right that exists separately from the militia purpose, according to your argument? It has to be a right to do something, does it not?
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 11-03-2011, 9:10 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,663
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
...There just ain't any Constitutional protection for carrying concealed.

But there is protection for carrying openly. Or such is the hint from SCOTUS. That being the case, then isn't the obvious path to follow the one SCOTUS wants us to follow?...
Nope, that is a defective analysis of Heller.

It's not a question of a right to carry concealed being protected, nor is it a question of a right to carry openly being protected. Heller in effect says that the right to bear arms is an individual right unconnected with service in a militia. Therefore, the individual's right to carry a gun for self defense is protected, but not necessarily to carry it conceal or to carry it openly. And Heller clearly recognizes that rights described by the Second Amendment may be subject to some limitations.

The availability of some carry option very well may satisfy, in a court's view, the Second Amendment. And thus a court might find that the Second Amendment is satisfied by a right to carry openly but not concealed, or to carry concealed but not openly, or to carry either openly or concealed; and it's possible that a court would conclude that any or all available carry options could be subject to a "shall issue" license to carry requirement?

Considering the range of results possible our strategy needs to well thought out. And I submit that a result that allows only open carry is undesirable.

In many ways, from a simple life style perspective, concealed carry has a number of desirable attributes that open carry lacks. For example, in inclement weather it will be more convenient to carry one's gun under a coat or in a pocket than openly and exposed to the weather.

And some people, in various social or professional situations need to conform their manner of dress to certain accepted norms, e. g., wearing a coat and tie. People in such circumstances could not realistically openly carry a gun and would be effectively disarmed and deprived of the ability to most effectively defend themselves if open carry were the only option.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by fiddletown; 11-03-2011 at 12:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 11-03-2011, 9:12 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,663
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
I don't believe you have made a case that those limitations could include a denial of carry outside the home. If it exists, then what IS the right that exists separately from the militia purpose, according to your argument? It has to be a right to do something, does it not?
See my post, above.

Yes, I think some right to carry outside the home is protected.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 11-04-2011, 4:22 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,525
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Actually, the Court cited Nunn and Chandler three times, together with some other cases (and Nunn a fourth time). I've shown exactly in what context and for what purposes the Court did so.

The Court first cited Nunn and Chandler in a footnote with several other cases to demonstrate that the bearing of arms was understood to be an individual, personal matter and not limited to service in a militia. This of course is part and parcel of demonstrating that the Second Amendment describes individual and not collective rights.

The second citation to both cases, with some others, demonstrated that courts understood the Second Amendment to describe individual rights.

The third citation to both cases, with some others, demonstrated that the courts at that time believed that the rights described by the Second Amendment or similar state constitutional provisions could be subject to limitations.

Well you are guessing. But your guess aren't really backed by the words of the Court in Heller, as I've shown.

Actually, what you've done is repeat, albeit more elaborately, your claim as to why the Court cited and quoted Nunn, etc. The first quote (the second cite by your way of counting) did indeed describe an individual Right. The Right being described was the to "bear" arms. Note that after Nunn was quoted (using a paragraph that didn't mention carrying openly) they said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heller Decision
Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”
(emphasis mine)

Note they start with the word "likewise." The paragraph from Nunn didn't address the method of "and bear," just that the 2A was an individual Right. The quote from Chandler does address "and bear" however. What's the "likewise" connecting the two if not the Right to carry openly?

The Court's second quote (third cite by your counting) does indeed address limitations. The limitations being discussed being manner of "and bear." That being the case, the several references to how open carry is protected are a pretty big hint from the Court that limitations on concealed carry, even to the point of banning the practice, are going to be OK with the Court. But that limitations on carrying openly are not.

Your guess is contrary. You could be right. But your ability to follow what people say is a bit flawed.


From your other post:


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Considering the range of results possible our strategy needs to well thought out. And I submit that a result that allows only open carry is undesirable.

All that you said about the situations that would require carrying concealed is correct.

But, I never said anything about open carry being the only option allowed. If you had correctly followed my words, you would have noticed that my belief is that open carry is the method of carry that is Constitutionally protected. Nothing in my analysis lead, or should have lead, you to think anything else. Your analysis is completely, horribly flawed. So, let me re-phrase in the hopes that you'll follow along this time.

If my analysis is correct & LOC becomes the protected Right (again), then, yes, CCW could be outlawed. I simply don't think that will happen. Could the completely unfair way the privilege is now granted in some places remain? Unlikely. My reading of the various suits in re CCW leads me to think that while they won't make CCW Constitutionally protected, they will impose fairness. I.E., We'll go from May-Issue to Shall-Issue.

Which will allow people in suits & ties to pack heat discreetly.

Is that clear enough for you?


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 11-04-2011, 8:12 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,663
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli
...You could be right. But your ability to follow what people say is a bit flawed....
Not really. It's your ability to read and understand court decisions that is badly flawed. I guess because you've never done it for a living.

In any case, I've stated and supported my view of the matter, and others can decide for themselves.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 11-04-2011, 8:37 AM
greasemonkey greasemonkey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: www.CalgunsFoundation.org
Posts: 2,526
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Funny how threads discussing Charles Nichols antics always seem to be placed in my "Know the Anti's" subscribed thread folder.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 11-04-2011, 8:40 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Not really. It's your ability to read and understand court decisions that is badly flawed. I guess because you've never done it for a living.
Let's attack the arguments, not the person, please. You guys both offer valuable perspectives here that we all benefit from. Fiddletown, this is not directed at you specifically, but I would submit that, very often, those doing it for a living also have a hard time understanding court decisions.

Given the nearly definitive case citations in Heller which support open carry, combined with the announcement that concealed carry laws are probably constitutional, I tend to favor with Mulay's view here. But at a minimum there is plenty of room for discussion sans ad hominems.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 11-04-2011, 9:32 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,663
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
...Given the nearly definitive case citations in Heller which support open carry,....
I'm sorry, but the point I've been making is that the supposition that the citations of those cases in Heller shows support for open carry is wrong. I've demonstrated that by showing in detail exactly how and for what purposes Nunn and Chandler, with other cases, were cited in Heller.

Our position needs to be that carrying of arms for personal protection outside the home is constitutionally protected (not that only open carry is protected). And the general proposition that carry outside the home is constitutionally protected is directly supported by the language of Heller.

Any support for open carry in Nunn or Chandler may be historically interesting, but has little precedential value. Both are state court cases applicable only in their respective States. Both refer to the Secondary Amendment, but both were decided (in 1846 and 1850, respectively) after the U. S. Supreme Court had already ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)).

And as clearly apparent from the direct and explicit language of the Court in Heller, neither was ever cited to show adoption of a position by the Court supporting open carry. Rather those cases, with others, were cited explicitly to show (1) that the right to bear arms was understood to be an individual right unconnected with service in a militia; (2) that the rights described in the Second Amendment were understood to be individual rights; and (3) that the rights described in the Second Amendment were understood to be subject to limitations.

And as edwardm pointed out in post 129:
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardm
The mere citation of a case in an opinion does not reflect the Court (or any court) embracing the all holdings of the cited case. The citation may refer to a single holding, or it may be cited for other purposes (i.e. historical more so than legal), as fiddletown noted.

It is the context of the Nunn and Chandler citations within Heller that matters, not the fact that the Court cited them. The Court looked to Nunn and Chandler to support the individual rights model of the 2nd Amendment....
It's very important to have a firm grasp of what these cases say, and what they don't say. If in our desire for certain result we read too much in these cases, we make the mistake of Charles Nichols and set out on a barren path to a sucking bog. We all want judicial support for carry outside the home, but let's not appear to grasp at straws to find it. It's there in more substantial form.

And as for ad hominems, I also take offense at being told:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli
...your ability to follow what people say is a bit flawed...
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 11-04-2011, 7:54 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Not until SCOTUS says so. So that's another multimillion dollar lawsuit, a bunch of years and some risk away. On the other hand, both state and federal GFSZ laws except persons with a state issued LTC.

If we get a shall issue LTC in California, we can be carrying our guns; and GFSZ is a non-issue. Then while we're carrying our guns legally, albeit concealed, even through a GFSZ, we can be working on open carry and the whole GFSZ business.
Yeah, good luck getting the GFSZ issue dealt with once it's no longer actually infringing the right, thanks to the LTC exemptions that are in place (ETA: actually, the federal GFSZ might be possible to get struck in states which have RKBA but which don't issue LTCs, but that won't help us against the state GFSZ law). Good luck getting open carry once shall-issue LTC for concealed carry is considered by the judiciary to be an appropriate means of implementing the "right" to carry firearms at all. And good luck getting the right to carry unconcealable rifles in urban public once the right to carry handguns has been established, since self defense is the bulwark of the right, and time, place, and manner restrictions are perfectly valid.

We're going to be waiting a very long time for any of those once we get shall-issue LTC for concealed carry here.


That's not to say that going for shall-issue LTC isn't the best course of action, because it may be the only course of action that's likely to succeed. But that action will have consequences, and it will foreclose all those other options to us for decades (if not for all time).

And I'm willing to make a $1000 donation to CGF if I'm proven wrong.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-04-2011 at 8:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:10 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.